API 오퍼레이션 설명

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate the tool returns specific information (official source, base URL, description), implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose error handling, required permissions, or any side effects. This is minimal but non-tautological disclosure.

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 a single, compact sentence with no redundant filler. It front-loads the core purpose immediately, though it could be slightly more specific about parameter roles without adding length.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description alone is insufficient to fully understand the tool's behavior, error cases, or how it relates to sibling tools. It conveys the basic return type but leaves out usage context and expected input-output behavior.

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 0% and the description only vaguely ties parameters to 'dataset or operation', without explaining the exact format or meaning of datasetId and operation. The required/optional relationship is left to the schema's required array, and the description adds little beyond that.

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 states a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('official source·base URL·description for a specific dataset or operation'), which clearly conveys the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like discover_datasets or execute_operation, though the focus on metadata retrieval is implicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as discover_datasets or execute_operation. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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