check_minutes_grounding

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

The description clearly discloses the heuristic nature, possible false positives, and that it does not block saving, and explains date normalization designed to avoid false positives on legitimate minutes. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint) and does not contradict them in any way.

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 longer than most but well-structured with headers (검사 항목, 중요, Args, Returns) and bullet lists. Core purpose is front-loaded before details, and every section earns its place. Slight redundancy in the Returns section (output schema already covers the return structure) keeps it from a 5.

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 output schema exists and the moderate complexity, the description is complete: it covers purpose, check item catalog, advisory caveat, alternative validation tool, args, and return semantics. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's Args section mostly restates schema content (note_id = original memo id, minutes_markdown = full draft text) with only marginal additions like the max_findings default of 30, which the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb ('역으로 대조' — reverse cross-check) and resource (people/dates/numbers in minutes vs. original memo text). It enumerates concrete check items (person_unsupported, date_unsupported, number_unsupported, etc.), which lets an agent know precisely what the tool inspects and distinguish it from validate_minutes_draft (structural) and read_meeting_note (source lookup).

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 explicitly positions this as advisory: '자문(advisory)입니다... 저장을 막지 않습니다' and names the actual save gate as validate_minutes_draft(구조) + user approval, defining when-not. It also prescribes the follow-up workflow — re-check warnings against the original via read_meeting_note and mark as '미정' if ungrounded — leaving no inference about usage.

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