ecount_get_inventory_by_warehouse

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rate limit (1초/1회) and the response structure in detail, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any permissions required, or behavior when no data is found. For a query tool, the response and rate limit add value, but missing edge-case behavior keeps it at a 3.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured. It opens with the purpose, then usage context, then required parameters, followed by clearly tagged [Rate Limit] and [Response] sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with low complexity, the description covers the main purpose, usage, required parameters, rate limit, and response format. The optional whCode parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema explains it. The description could be more complete by noting the effect of whCode, but the schema covers it, so this is not a critical gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents each parameter with descriptions and format constraints. The description only repeats that baseDate and prodCode are required, which is already in the schema. It adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is a single-record inquiry of inventory by warehouse for a specific item (특정 품목의 각 창고별 재고 수량을 조회). The verb '조회' (inquiry) and resource '창고별 재고현황' are specific, and the scope (단건 조회) distinguishes it from list variants like ecount_get_inventory_by_warehouse_list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use: '여러 창고에 분산된 재고를 창고별로 확인할 때 사용합니다' (use when checking inventory distributed across multiple warehouses by warehouse). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear for a single-item query.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.