자격 검토

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses deterministic rule-based checks, output types (적합/확인필요/부적합), includes a disclaimer about not guaranteeing eligibility and final confirmation by operating agency. This is fairly transparent.

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 sentences: first clearly states purpose and criteria, second describes output and disclaimer. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 nested input schema and no output schema, the description covers output structure (three levels with evidence and actions) and includes a necessary disclaimer. It is sufficiently complete for a deterministic check, though could mention side effects or limitations more explicitly.

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 50%. The description adds meaning by listing the criteria categories checked (창업여부, 업력, 지역, etc.) for the profile parameter, beyond what the schema provides. This helps the agent understand how the profile is used.

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 specifies the tool checks eligibility for a specific grant using deterministic rules, lists criteria, and describes output (적합/확인필요/부적합 with evidence and actions). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like recommend_grants or score_application.

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 usage context (checking self against a specific grant) and lists criteria, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. Sibling names provide context, so it is clear but lacks exclusions.

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