upcoming_deadlines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and openness profile is covered. The description adds useful scope behavior (deadline-only filtering, exclusion of always-open benefits). Return format and pagination aren't addressed, but an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope sentence, then a compact Args list where each line earns its place. Slightly list-heavy but no wasted prose.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers scope plus all parameters. For a read-only listing tool this is complete enough to invoke 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 burden — and it does document all five parameters inline with meaning and defaults (days=window, sido/sigungu=residence, keyword=filter, limit=max results). This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema descriptions, though residency fields could say more about matching 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+resource — listing benefits with approaching application deadlines — and adds a scoping constraint (only items with explicit deadline dates; always-open applications excluded). This clearly separates it from a generic catalog, though it doesn't name which sibling (find_benefits/search_benefits) to prefer.

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 exclusion of 상시신청 (always-open applications) implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance naming sibling tools like find_benefits or search_benefits. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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