get_apt_subscription_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It details authentication methods (two options), parameter mappings (e.g., stat_year_month -> STAT_DE), and mentions the use of odcloud cond[...] syntax for filters. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or mention rate limits. Given the lack of annotations, the description is fairly transparent but could be more explicit about safety (though the context suggests a read operation).

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, examples, differentiation, parameters, authentication, and returns. It front-loads the main purpose. However, it is somewhat lengthy (about 15 lines) but necessary due to the tool's complexity. A slight reduction in detail could improve conciseness without losing clarity.

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?

The description covers input parameters, output summary (total_count, items, etc.), authentication, and sibling tool differentiation. The output schema exists but is not detailed in the description; the 'Returns' section provides a reasonable overview. Given the parameter count (7) and complexity, the description is complete enough though it could touch on error handling or pagination behavior more explicitly.

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 0% description coverage, meaning no property descriptions. The description compensates by providing detailed explanations for each parameter in the 'Args' section, including their mapping to API fields and the meaning of stat_kind choices (e.g., 'reqst_area': 지역별 청약 신청자). This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema's empty property definitions.

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 returns subscription statistics (requests, winners, rates, scores) with specific verb 'Return' and resource 'subscription stats'. It provides Korean keywords and example queries. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_apt_subscription_info' which handles schedules, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage guidance with three Korean query examples, stating 'Use this tool when the user asks...' and also provides an alternative for schedules ('For schedules... use get_apt_subscription_info'). This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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