check_all

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the schema: partial-failure tolerance — a failing check does not suppress the other results. It says nothing about how failures are reported, whether the call errors out at all, ordering of results, or cost/latency of running everything at once.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the partial-failure guarantee is stated up front. The brevity is appropriate structurally, though it comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere rather than from trimming redundancy.

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 batch aggregator with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what to put in "text", how "as_of" changes results, or what the aggregated response looks like (a list of per-check outcomes? a merged verdict?).

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 0% for both parameters. The description never explains what "text" is (the document being validated? a stock name? free-form content?) or what "as_of" controls (a date anchor for market data?). With zero schema documentation, the description had to compensate and does not.

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?

"위 검사를 한 번에 돌린다" states a batch-run action, and the phrase "위 검사" points at the four sibling check_* tools, so an agent can infer this is an aggregate runner. However, it never enumerates which checks are included, and the deictic "위" (above) only works if the agent already knows sibling ordering, so it is vaguer than a direct "runs all four check_* validations".

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 phrase "한 번에" implies this is the shortcut when you want every check rather than calling the individual check_* tools. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. use a single check_* when you only need one validation, or when cost/latency matters), so the routing decision is left to inference.

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