get_alio_institution_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It lists the output components (number of regulations, distribution, revision frequency, recent revisions) but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or data freshness. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the tool's function. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) 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?

The tool is simple with three parameters and no output schema. The description mentions the output components but does not specify format or structure. For a quick-overview tool, this is acceptable but leaves some ambiguity about the exact output representation.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema covering 100% of parameters. The description adds context like '기관코드(apbaId)' for institution, but this does not significantly extend beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies as schema already documents parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool provides a summary of a public institution's regulatory framework including counts, distribution, revision frequency, and recent revisions. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from siblings like get_alio_statistics that offer different analytics.

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 clearly states the tool is for pre-investigation before comparison or quick grasp of unfamiliar institutions, implying the context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would improve guidance.

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