ecount_get_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a rate limit ('[Rate Limit: 1초/1회]') and a detailed response field list with meanings, which are not present in the schema. However, it does not explicitly state error behavior or read-only nature, though '조회' (inquiry) implies it. This goes beyond minimal but leaves minor gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: it leads with the purpose, then usage guidance, then rate limit and response fields. Every sentence provides useful information without waste. The formatting with brackets for rate limit and response is clear and scannable.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is adequately complete. It covers purpose, usage, rate limiting, and provides a full response field mapping with meanings, which is essential since no output schema exists. The only omission is error scenarios, but this is acceptable for a simple lookup tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the sole parameter prodCode, with a detailed description specifying it is mandatory, must be an exact ECOUNT code, and includes an example. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating '정확한 품목코드' (exact code), so it does not elevate beyond the schema baseline.

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 the tool's function: '품목 단건 조회' (single item lookup) and '특정 품목코드의 상세 정보를 조회합니다' (retrieve detailed info of a specific item code). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool ecount_get_products by explicitly mentioning the alternative for searching when the code is unknown.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: '정확한 품목코드를 알고 있을 때 사용하세요' (use when you know the exact item code) and when-not-to-use with alternatives: '품목코드를 모르면 ecount_get_products로 검색하거나 전체 목록을 조회하세요' (if you don't know the code, search with ecount_get_products or view the full list). This fully addresses usage context and alternatives.

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