get_recent_alio_revisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are in date descending order and support filters. However, it does not mention potential destructive behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if no revisions are found (empty result). The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence that covers the key aspects: time range, ordering, filters, and use case. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains the tool's purpose and usage well. It does not detail the return format or pagination, but for a simple timeline tool, this is sufficient. It provides enough context for an agent to use correctly among many siblings.

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 100%, and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds overall context ('timeline', 'date descending') but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns a timeline of regulations revised within N days, with date descending, and supports topic/institution filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_alio_regulations (which lists all) and get_alio_regulation_history (history of one). The example usage '최근 인사 규정 바뀐 데?' reinforces its monitoring purpose.

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 clear context: it is for monitoring recent revisions with optional filters. It implies when to use (e.g., 'what changed recently?') but does not explicitly state when not to use or differentiate from alternatives like search_alio_regulation_text.

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