notice_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does establish that this returns content (body + attachment list) rather than mutating anything, which signals a read-only fetch. It does not disclose behavior on an invalid or unknown seq, permission/authentication needs, or whether the attachment list is truncated, so the mutation/error profile remains undocumented.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the two things returned and then the follow-up action in parentheses; there is no filler and no restatement of the tool name. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter detail tool.

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 the return payload needn't be spelled out, and the description correctly limits itself to saying body plus attachments come back. What is missing for a tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage is the meaning of 'seq'/'board' and any failure behavior, leaving real gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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% for both parameters: 'seq' is a bare integer with no title beyond 'Seq', and 'board' is a string defaulting to '공지'. The description adds no meaning for either — it does not explain that seq is a notice identifier obtained from the notices list nor what values 'board' accepts, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific resource pair: the notice body plus its attachment list, and implicitly distinguishes this main-campus detail fetch from the sibling 'dept_notice_detail' via '본교'. It also routes PDF reading to a named sibling, so an agent can separate this from 'notices' (list) and 'read_attachment' (file contents), though it never states the resource verb explicitly (fetch/retrieve).

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?

There is one useful routing hint: attachment PDFs should be read with read_attachment, which tells the agent when to chain into another tool. However, it never says that a notice 'seq' must first be obtained from the 'notices' sibling, nor does it mention any when-not conditions or prerequisites for this being a detail (single-item) call.

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