list_verification_targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds context about returning two lists (original Excel and .docx reports), but this is also covered by the output schema. No contradiction with annotations, but little incremental behavioral disclosure beyond what structured fields provide.

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 reasonably concise with the main purpose front-loaded. The 'Returns' section and example are useful but slightly redundant with the output schema. Overall efficient and easy to scan quickly.

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 read-only list tool, the description is complete: annotations cover safety, output schema covers return format, and the description covers workflow position, usage examples, and exclusions. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without guessing.

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% – both parameters (원본디렉터리 and 보고서디렉터리) have descriptive text in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 explicitly states it queries the list of verifiable reports and original files for comparison, and includes a concrete example query. It also differentiates from the sibling tool preview_verification_report by specifying when not to use it, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly identifies this as the starting point of verification work, instructs the agent to pass the obtained filenames to other tools, and provides both when-to-use ('검증할 수 있는 보고서가 뭐가 있나요?') and when-not-to-use examples with an explicit alternative (preview_verification_report).

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