draftBusinessPlan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a structured draft with section guides and item lists, which implies a creative/writing operation. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, output format (e.g., text, JSON), whether it's idempotent, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations and complex inputs, this is a significant gap.

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, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and output features. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from output details.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It explains the high-level function but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, and output expectations. For a tool that generates structured documents, more context on the output format and process is needed to be fully helpful.

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?

The description mentions analyzing '공고 텍스트와 회사 정보' (announcement text and company information), which aligns with parameters like 'announcementText' and 'companyProfile'. However, schema description coverage is 50%, and the description doesn't add meaning for undocumented parameters (e.g., 'announcementTitle', 'businessNumber', 'requestedAmount', 'projectPeriodMonths') or clarify usage. It provides marginal context but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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: '공고 텍스트와 회사 정보를 분석해 사업계획서 구조화 초안을 생성합니다' (analyzes announcement text and company information to generate a structured draft business plan). It specifies the verb (analyze and generate), resource (business plan draft), and scope (structured with sections). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'draftSettlementReport' or 'generateDocumentChecklist', which might also generate documents.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions what it does but doesn't specify prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't indicate if this should be used before or after tools like 'checkEligibility' or 'searchGovernmentSupport', or if it's for initial drafting versus finalization.

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