단계별 준비서류 생성

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns 'candidates' (implying a selection, not a definitive list), which provides marginal behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 a single sentence (11 words) that front-loads the core function with zero wasted words. Every element serves to clarify the tool's purpose.

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 complexity (12 parameters, 3 required, output schema exists), the description is succinct but covers the essential inputs and output. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. It adequately positions the tool among siblings.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description only mentions three key parameters (transaction_type, user_role, stage) without adding any additional meaning to the 12 parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'returns', the resource 'document candidates', and the criteria (transaction type, role, stage). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'generate_pre_contract_checklist' and 'flag_expert_review_points' by focusing on document generation.

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 its usage is for generating document candidates based on stage, role, and transaction type, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_today_tasks' or 'generate_calendar_items'. No exclusions or context for when not to use it are provided.

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