생활기록부 문안 일괄 검증

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

The description discloses that results are not official approval or legal judgment, and that missing provenance prevents confirming observation and writing background. These are useful caveats beyond the schema, but the actual validation behavior is not described. With no annotations, the description carries a heavy burden that is only partially met.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the use case, followed by important caveats. No wasted 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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool's complexity (nested entries with many properties) demands more context. The description provides a basic use case and two caveats but omits the actual validation purpose, what rules are checked, and how to structure inputs correctly. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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%. The description only highlights provenance as a critical factor but does not explain the entries array, entryId, field, text, or other parameters. Since the schema alone is complex, the description fails to compensate.

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 indicates the tool is for batch review of multiple independent texts, distinguishing it from sibling validate_record_text which presumably handles a single text. However, it emphasizes providing a stable entryId rather than explicitly stating the validation logic, making the core purpose slightly ambiguous.

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?

It provides a clear use case: invoke when reviewing multiple independent texts at once. This gives context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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