check_eligibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-mutating lookup. The description adds that the call reports denial reasons and insufficient-information cases, which is modest extra context, but says nothing about latency, caching, or what happens when optional inputs are omitted.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact per-argument list with no filler. Slightly terse, but every line earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description sensibly covers purpose plus all six inputs for a read-only tool. Remaining gaps are the enumerations for traits and gender, which would materially help an agent populate the request correctly.

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%, so the description carries the full parameter burden and does so for all six arguments: units for median_income_percent, the meaning of traits as life/occupation/household situations, and the non-obvious convention that unknown traits should be omitted while inapplicable ones use []. It falls short of enumerating valid trait values or accepted gender strings.

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: judging eligibility (자격 판정) for one named benefit, scoped to a single service_id. It also discloses the output character (ineligibility reasons, missing information). It does not name sibling tools like find_benefits or search_benefits, so the single-vs-many distinction is only implied.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase '특정 혜택 하나에 대해' (for one specific benefit), which suggests this is a per-benefit follow-up rather than a discovery tool. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative is given, leaving the agent to infer the relationship with search_benefits and get_benefit_detail.

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