사업계획서 체크리스트 점검

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool auto-detects specific patterns (zero-score answer patterns, qualitative comparisons, paragraph summaries) and flags remaining items as 'checkneeded'. It mentions including warnings and a score for reference. However, it doesn't specify whether the tool is read-only, if it modifies the input, or the exact format of the output. The behavioral scope is moderately transparent but could be more precise.

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 concise paragraph that front-loads the main action. Every sentence adds value, though the information is dense. It could benefit from bullet points for readability, but it remains efficient and avoids verbosity.

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 complexity is moderate (2 params, no output schema, no annotations). The description explains the tool's purpose and detection capabilities, but lacks details on the output format, prerequisites (e.g., language), and limitations. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more context on what the agent will receive, but it does hint at warnings and scores.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's note that fullText can be used instead of sections, but does not add deeper meaning beyond the schema. No parameter-specific details are provided that would help the agent interpret values beyond the schema.

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 tool checks a business plan against a 10-item checklist of absolute rules, automatically detecting specific patterns and providing warnings and scores. The verb '점검합니다' (checks) and resource '사업계획서' (business plan) are specific, and the mention of '절대 규칙 체크리스트 10항목' distinguishes it from sibling tools like score_application or check_eligibility.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. There is no mention of alternatives or when not to use it. The description implies usage for checking against the 10 absolute rules, but lacks direct context like 'use this to verify compliance with the checklist; for eligibility checks, use check_eligibility instead.'

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