ecount_get_purchase_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses rate limit (1 request per 10 minutes), result caching (10 minutes), and detailed response structure including order fields and status meanings. This goes beyond schema and gives the agent clear expectations.

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 dense but every clause adds value: purpose, required params, format, max range, filters, rate limit, and response fields. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully documents the response structure (period, count, orders array with field details) and rate limiting. It covers usage constraints and filters, making it self-sufficient for an agent.

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 already provides per-parameter descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds the critical 30-day max query range constraint and clarifies required fields, supplementing schema with cross-parameter semantics.

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 '발주서 조회' (purchase order inquiry) and '특정 기간의 발주서 목록을 조회합니다' (retrieves list of purchase orders for a specific period), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ecount_get_product(s) and ecount_create_purchase by focusing on purchase order list retrieval.

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 specifies required date fields, YYYYMMDD format, 30-day max range, and optional filters by customer or product code. It gives clear context for when to use this tool (querying purchase orders by period) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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