요구사항 검토

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, non-destructive, non-idempotent) by disclosing quota consumption, hard input limits, an input validation rule, and that the result is advisory only ('never approval'). Remaining gaps are minor: no error/retry behavior or auth requirements for the 'connected platform'.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then limits, then the validation rule and output caveat; every clause carries information. It reads as one dense block of semicolon-separated constraints rather than clearly separated guidance, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description supplies input limits, validation, cost, and the nature of the return value (advice, human review required). What an agent needs to invoke it correctly is essentially covered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and two bare properties, the description carries the full load and does so: source is capped at 12,000 characters; requirements is 1–32 objects with id, text, quote and origin (client/internal); and a cross-field rule that client quotes must appear in source. This meaningfully supplements the empty schema.

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+resource ('requirements review'), the payload sent ('source and candidates'), and the destination ('the connected platform'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like validate_schema or collect_reference, though 'connected platform' stays vague.

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 word 'explicitly' implies this is an opt-in action versus some implicit/automatic path, and 'May consume shared usage' warns about cost, which helps timing decisions. But no alternative tool is named and there is no when-not guidance, so usage is only implied.

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