시장조사 분석 (PEST·TAM/SAM/SOM/LAM·경쟁비교)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not fabricate data, marks missing entries, and auto-generates a radar chart if conditions (3+ axes, all numeric) are met. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention potential side effects or modification of inputs.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core outputs, followed by constraints. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, data input behavior, and auto-generation features. Given the complexity (6 parameters, nested objects) and no output schema, it is reasonably complete. It does not address all edge cases (e.g., handling of invalid input), but it provides sufficient context for typical use.

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 descriptions for most parameters. The tool description adds value by explaining auto-generation of radar charts based on '비교축' conditions and the '[입력 필요]' behavior for missing fields, which goes beyond the schema. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 provides PEST analysis, TAM/SAM/SOM/LAM market size estimation, competitor comparison table with radar charts. The verb '제공합니다' (provides) indicates the tool generates these outputs, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like plan_outline or draft_section.

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 gives guidance: data must be input by the founder, missing items are marked as '[입력 필요]', and sources must be verified. It implies the tool is for founders to input their own data. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, e.g., when not to use it.

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