hira_disease_gender_age_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the purpose but does not mention output format, pagination behavior, data freshness, rate limits, or any other operational traits. The description is minimal and lacks transparency about key behavioral aspects.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return structure, pagination implications, or any constraints beyond the parameter defaults. A more complete description would include expected output or link to documentation.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description adds no further significant meaning beyond the schema; it only provides a high-level use case. A score of 3 reflects the baseline when schema carries the load.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'HIRA disease statistics by gender and age', and provides a specific use case ('Korean medicine lecture examples after finding a disease code'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on other dimensions (in/out, institution type, region).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('after finding a disease code') and implies a prerequisite step (search for disease code first, as noted in the parameter schema). While it does not list alternative tools, the context signals clearly differentiate this tool from siblings.

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