견적서 정산 분석

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains input recognition and output calculations but does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only), authorization needs, or rate limits. For a computation tool, these are less critical, but transparency could be improved by stating it is a pure function.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core calculations, the second adds input format capabilities. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description is complete. It explains all key aspects: inputs, calculations, and input format handling.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the business meaning of 'billing' (client charges) and 'outsource' (vendor payments) and by describing the output metrics. This goes beyond the schema's structural description.

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 verb ('calculates') and the resource (estimate/invoice data) and lists specific metrics (total billing, outsourcing, domestic, domestic rate). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'generate_campaign_report' which likely generates a report rather than performing calculations.

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 for analyzing ad estimate/invoice data, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The sibling tool context helps differentiate, but explicit guidance on when to choose this over generate_campaign_report would improve clarity.

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