합격 전략

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

With no annotations, the description should compensate but only mentions it provides suggestions and is for reference. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, if it modifies data, or any side effects. The advisory tone hints at non-authoritative behavior but is insufficient.

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 main purpose, and includes a necessary caveat. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured.

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 complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It lists outputs but does not specify format or behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper invocation.

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 only 33%, leaving many nested fields undocumented. The description does not explain the parameters or their roles beyond 'based on announcement and profile', failing to add meaning 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 provides recommendations based on announcement and profile, listing specific outputs (track, points plan, emphasis, schedule, checklist). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like check_eligibility or recommend_grants.

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 alternatives. The description includes a caveat that it's a reference suggestion and advises verification, but does not specify contexts or exclusions.

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