manageAlertProfile

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 mentions CRUD operations but lacks details on permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing data during updates/deletes. For a tool with multiple mutation actions (create, update, delete) and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 the first sentence and listing actions and condition types efficiently. It uses minimal sentences with no wasted words. However, the inclusion of Korean characters and mixed formatting slightly reduces readability, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, multiple mutation actions) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or response formats, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively. The schema covers parameters well, but the description fails to compensate for missing context elsewhere.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the condition types (keywords, fields, regions, target types) and specifying the action parameter values, but it does not provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: managing alert profiles for government support notifications through CRUD operations (create, retrieve, update, delete). It specifies the resource ('alert profiles'), the actions, and the types of alert conditions stored (keywords, fields, regions, target types). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on searching, drafting, or checking eligibility rather than profile management.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for managing alert profiles with specific condition types. It lists the available actions (list, get, create, update, delete), which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., searchGovernmentSupport for finding supports vs. managing alerts).

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