생활기록부 문안 검증

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the result is not an official approval or legal judgment and that provenance absence blocks confirmation. But it does not cover other behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, output structure, or error 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 two short sentences, front-loading the key 'call first' directive and then adding a necessary caveat. Every sentence earns its place 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?

This is a complex tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, enums, and no annotations or schema descriptions, yet the description only provides timing and a caveat. It omits input semantics, examples, field categories, and relationships to sibling tools, leaving the agent under-equipped for correct invocation.

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% across 8 parameters, and the description only mentions provenance as a limiting condition. It adds no semantic meaning for the required field/text parameters or nested activityContext/volunteerContext objects, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 frames the tool as a required pre-check before reviewing, correcting, or writing a 생활기록부 narrative, and the title confirms '문안 검증'. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling validate_record_batch, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: call this before reviewing, correcting, or writing. It also provides a condition of use by warning that missing provenance prevents confirming observation/writing circumstances. However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it.

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