checkEligibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions returning status and recommendations but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, data handling (e.g., profile merging), or whether the analysis is deterministic or AI-based. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in a single sentence. However, the inclusion of Korean characters (【자격 판정】) adds minor redundancy without functional value, slightly detracting from efficiency.

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 complex tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the high-level purpose but lacks details on output structure, error handling, and behavioral constraints. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has insufficient context for reliable use.

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%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implicitly referencing 'announcement text' and 'company profile' without explaining parameter interactions or the merging logic for saved profiles. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's comprehensive coverage.

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 tool's purpose: analyzing announcement text and company profiles to determine eligibility for support. It specifies the verb ('analyze'), resources ('announcement text and company profile'), and output ('eligibility fulfillment status with recommendations'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search or draft functions.

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 implies usage context (evaluating eligibility for government support) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like searchGovernmentSupport or compareByRegion. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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