오늘 출퇴근 현황

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by enumerating what the query surfaces, notably the '출퇴근 입력 가능 여부' (whether punching is currently permitted) flag, which is behaviorally meaningful. It does not discuss timezone basis for '오늘', caching, or latency, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the resource and scope ('JADE 에서 오늘'). It is compact, but the relative '오늘' is left unanchored (server/company timezone), which is a small missing qualifier rather than verbosity.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return content, and it does so by listing the four fields returned. What remains unstated is the timezone/date basis for 'today' and the response shape if no attendance exists yet.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies the date scope is fixed to today rather than configurable.

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?

States a specific verb (조회한다 / retrieves) with a concrete resource: today's workday flag, clock-in/clock-out times, work duration, and whether punch input is currently allowed. The read verb contrasts implicitly with the many jade_prepare_* / jade_commit_* mutation siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the read-only status probe to run before a punch flow (jade_prepare_punch / jade_commit_punch), but the description never says when to call it versus those siblings or what prerequisites exist. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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