검증 규칙 설명

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses that the result is not official/legal and that absence of input provenance prevents confirming observation details. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple lookup, though it does not explicitly state read-only or side-effect-free behavior.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a caveat and a limitation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage timing, and a critical limitation about provenance. It is adequately complete, though it could further clarify what the tool returns if the output schema were not present.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'ruleId' in passing as part of a validation finding, without explaining its format, source, or how to obtain valid values. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name itself.

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 states the tool is to be called before explaining a ruleId from a validation finding, clearly indicating its purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_record_text and search_record_guidance by focusing on explaining a specific rule ID.

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 for when to use the tool ('before explaining to the user') and adds a caveat that the result is not official or legal. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context implies it is for rule explanation rather than validation or search.

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