preview_verification_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the approval token is computed from finding content so any change alters it, and the approval request must be displayed verbatim. This gives the agent the workflow-level transparency that annotations cannot express.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, and the approval workflow is prominently placed near the top. There is minor redundancy between the first sentence and the explicit 'L1·L2·L3·L4 전부를 검사합니다' repetition, but the overall structure is compact and useful.

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 annotations, full parameter coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies the missing operational context: token integrity, verbatim approval display, and the save-after-approval gate. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly without ambiguity.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description: report path, previous week, target week, and source directory. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail, so the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it runs all four verification layers and returns the finding list, storage target, and approval request sentence. It also distinguishes itself from sibling intermediate tools by stating it covers L1·L2·L3·L4 in one call.

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 says intermediate tools are for showing humans why a judgment was made, implying this consolidated tool is for the full preview. It also gives a clear workflow rule: show `approval_request` verbatim and only call `save_approved_verification` after explicit user approval.

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