extract_report_claims

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral context: values are kept as raw strings to avoid masking rounding errors, extraction is deterministic for table-based reports, and '미검증열' explicitly discloses unverified columns with reasons. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives behavioral guarantees, return summary, and examples. The '62 vs 62.0' rationale and the '미검증열' explanation are dense but purposeful; every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description is complete: parameters are covered, return contents are summarized including truncation, examples show how to phrase queries, and the sibling alternative is named. Nothing needed for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a concrete example of 필드 ('L-08 계획완료일') and clarifies that extracted values remain raw strings, but it does not meaningfully elaborate on the 보고서 parameter beyond the schema. This is slightly above the baseline.

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 clear verb and resource: extracting ('뽑습니다') claims that can be checked against the original source ('원본과 대조 가능한 주장'). It also differentiates itself from verify_claims in the example, so an agent can distinguish extraction from verification without opening other tools.

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 explicitly gives a '사용' vs '사용하지 않음' example: use this tool to ask what the report says, and use verify_claims instead when the task is to judge correctness. It also notes deterministic table-based extraction, which helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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