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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about how non-Hangul characters, digits, spaces, or mixed-script input are handled, nor what the extracted output looks like. It does not contradict anything, but it also adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose statement.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves it close to under-specification for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the input is trivially a single string. Still, for a tool with zero annotation coverage, the description should say at least how non-Hangul input is treated to be complete enough for confident 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?

The single parameter 'text' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate; '한글 텍스트에서' does signal that the input should be Korean text, which is meaningful. However, nothing is said about format, length limits, or expected character set beyond that hint.

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 a specific verb ('추출합니다' / extract) and a specific resource ('초성' / initial consonants) from Hangul text, which is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (number_to_korean, korean_holidays, is_korean_business_day). It stops short of 5 only because '초성' is domain jargon that an agent may not resolve without prior knowledge.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the Korean-related siblings, no prerequisites, and no mention of what input is unsuitable (e.g., non-Hangul or mixed text). The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only check but never defines what makes a day a 'business day' (weekends only? public holidays too?), and with no output schema it never indicates the return value (presumably a boolean).

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?

A single efficient sentence with the format hint front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing in it is wasted.

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 check this is close to adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the definition should state the return type and the holiday/weekend rule. Those two omissions are the main gaps.

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 schema only labels the parameter 'Date' as a string. The description adds the accepted format YYYY-MM-DD, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about timezone or invalid-input behavior, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (확인합니다 / check) and a specific resource (whether a date is a Korean business day), so an agent can tell this apart from sibling tools like korean_holidays. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast those siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus korean_holidays or the other siblings, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.

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

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 implies a read operation and names the returned data, but says nothing about ordering, whether substitute/alternative holidays are included, behavior for invalid or out-of-range years, or timezone assumptions.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though there is little content to begin with.

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 one-parameter lookup tool the core intent is conveyed, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves the agent without any information on return shape or edge-case behavior.

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%, so the single 'year' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description only implies it via '해당 연도(the given year)' and adds no format, range, or validation semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (반환합니다/returns) and resource (한국 공휴일 목록/Korean public holiday list) scoped by year. The purpose is clear and distinguishable from siblings like is_korean_business_day, though it does not explicitly name the boundary.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus is_korean_business_day, which is a closely related holiday/business-day sibling. An agent must infer the split from the names alone.

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

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 core transformation and one example, but it does not explain the effect of the optional `won` flag, handling of negatives or large numbers, or that the operation is a pure non-mutating conversion.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with an example; no redundant or filler content.

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 pure conversion with an output schema, the core operation is covered, but the optional `won` parameter's behavior is not explained and there are no annotations to fill the gap, so the definition is only minimally complete.

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 demonstrates the required `n` parameter through an example, but it says nothing about the optional `won` boolean or how it changes the output (e.g., whether 원 is omitted), leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource in Korean ('정수를 ... 바꿉니다') and supplies a concrete input/output example, so the agent can identify the operation immediately. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no sibling differentiation is needed.

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?

Provides no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The implied use case is any integer-to-Korean-amount conversion, but the description does not say how to choose this tool over another approach.

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