validate_report_draft

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description is fully consistent. Beyond those annotations it adds real context: the gating behavior (errors block the downstream approval token) and the return shape (valid/error_count/warning_count/issues[] with rule_id/severity/message/fix/line). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Purpose and the critical gating consequence are front-loaded in the first two lines. Validation items are organized into error/warning lists, and Args/Returns sections are compact. Nothing is wasted; the whole definition 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?

With one fully documented parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call it (before preview_save_report), what rules it enforces (with rule IDs and severities), and what it returns. No meaningful gap remains.

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% - the single parameter report_markdown is already documented in the schema as '검증할 요약 보고서 초안 전문(마크다운)'. The Args section merely restates it without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. The validation-rule context lives in the description body, not in param semantics themselves.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource (검사합니다/요약 보고서 초안 구조) and enumerates exact validation rules by severity (error: H1 + 5 required sections; warning: section order, placeholders, etc.). Clearly distinct from all 13 siblings as a structural pre-save validator.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as a '저장 게이트' (save gate) and states the consequence: any error means preview_save_report won't issue an approval token. This routes the agent to call it before saving. It does not name alternatives like check_summary_grounding or diff_report_against_saved to clarify when those should be used instead, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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