draftSettlementReport

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool creates a draft report, implying a write operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). It adds some context about prerequisites, but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling or side effects.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second providing essential usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (a report generation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, prerequisites, and key parameters implicitly, but lacks details on output format or error conditions. With no annotations and no output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context, but it covers essential usage aspects adequately.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, mentioning the benefitRecordId as the basis but not elaborating on parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

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 with specific verbs ('생성합니다' - creates) and resources ('정산 보고서 초안' - settlement report draft), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it generates a draft report based on benefit history ID, unlike tools like manageBenefitHistory or add_expense which handle different operations.

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 explicit usage guidelines, stating when to use this tool ('먼저 manageBenefitHistory 로 이력을 등록하고 지출(add_expense)을 기록한 후 사용하세요' - first register history with manageBenefitHistory and record expenses with add_expense, then use this) and naming alternatives (manageBenefitHistory, add_expense), which clarifies prerequisites and workflow context.

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