사업계획서 전체 합본 (PSST 섹션·도식 → 정부 양식 순서)

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: does not fill empty sections arbitrarily, marks missing content, auto-checks checklist, diagnoses page volume, and appends unknown chart kinds. Missing details on return format or side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded, with every sentence adding value. No redundant or irrelevant phrases.

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 complexity with sections, charts, checklist, and page diagnosis, the description covers the main functionality but omits details on how the checklist works or how page target is used. Still sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context: sections should be draft_section results, grant_id is only for context and not to fabricate facts, and charts not in catalog go to appendix.

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 explicitly states it assembles PSST sections and charts into a full business plan markdown in government format, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like draft_section (which drafts individual sections) and plan_outline.

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 advises passing draft_section results directly for sections, and notes handling of empty sections and unknown chart kinds, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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