ecount_get_products

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rate limit and caching behavior, which are critical behavioral traits. It also specifies the response structure and fields, making the tool's output predictable. It does not mention authentication or error handling, but for a read operation this is sufficient, though not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with the core function, and efficiently organizes auxiliary info in bracketed sections (Rate Limit, Response). Every sentence carries useful information, and the structured presentation aids quick parsing.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides a complete response specification including field names and meanings. It also covers all calling modes and constraints. Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params), the description is comprehensive enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without further clarification.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining the relationship between prodCodes and prodType ('or') and the no-argument behavior for full listing, which enhances the semantic understanding beyond the schema alone. This is more than baseline but not overly detailed.

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 performs '품목 다건 조회' (multi-product inquiry) and explicitly distinguishes from the singular sibling 'ecount_get_product' by emphasizing multiple products at once. The verb and resource are specific, and the query variants (by prodCodes, by prodType, or all) are clearly outlined.

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 clear usage contexts: specific products via prodCodes, by product type via prodType, or all products with no arguments. It also notes the rate limit (10 minutes per call), which informs when to use it sparingly. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'ecount_get_product' for single-item queries, so it doesn't fully meet the 'explicit when-not' bar.

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