dept_notice_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return payload shape (body text, attachment links, image links). It says nothing about permissions, error behavior for invalid dept/no combinations, or pagination/truncation of long bodies, which leaves meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the content-first statement leads and the parameter caveat follows. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness borders on cryptic for an agent without Korean-language context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose explanation, and the description correctly focuses on scope and the `board` linkage. Still, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the unexplained required `dept` and `no` parameters leave the definition short of what is needed to call it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only explains one of three parameters: `board` must mirror the value obtained from `dept_notices`. The required `dept` and `no` parameters are left entirely undefined — an agent must guess that `no` is a notice identifier and `dept` a department key, and in what format.

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 identifies a specific resource — the body of a department notice plus its attachment and image links — which distinguishes it from the sibling `dept_notices` (the listing tool) and from the generic `notice_detail`. The retrieval verb is only implied, but the resource and returned content are concrete enough for an agent to recognize it as a detail/get tool.

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 note that `board` must be the exact value used in `dept_notices` implicitly signals the intended call order: list first, then fetch detail. However, there is no explicit statement of when this tool should be chosen over `notice_detail` or what happens if it is called without a prior `dept_notices` lookup.

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