report_v2_html

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it discloses that a missing saved version triggers server-side generation and that LLM-based opinion generation can cause delays. This goes beyond the schema and is valuable operational context, though it does not cover failure modes or side effects in detail.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then adds the two most important behavioral caveats: server generation on missing saved copies and potential slowness due to LLM opinions. Every part of the sentence 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what it returns (HTML body), when it may be slow, and that it may trigger generation. A slightly richer statement about timeout behavior or response format would push it to 5, but nothing critical is missing for selection and 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema; the latency mention is related to generation behavior, not parameter semantics. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb '조회한다' (retrieve) and the specific resource: the HTML body of the new V2 report. It distinguishes this tool from generic report tools by emphasizing '신규 리포트(V2)' and 'HTML 본문', though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 description gives clear context: use this for the V2 report's HTML body and be prepared for longer latency if no saved version exists. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the V2 and HTML-body framing makes the intended use reasonably unambiguous among the sibling report tools.

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