recommend_policy_funds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the types of recommendations (grants, loans, mentoring) but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or what the output format looks like. The description is functional but lacks operational transparency.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences that directly state the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with examples of what types of support are included. There's no wasted language, though it could potentially be structured to separate core function from examples.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what the tool does but lacks information about behavioral characteristics, output format, and usage boundaries. With no output schema, the description should ideally mention what kind of data is returned, but it doesn't.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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's purpose: recommending government/local government policy funds (grants, loans, mentoring programs) based on founder conditions. It uses specific verbs ('추천합니다', '안내합니다') and identifies the resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_startup_checklist' which might overlap in startup support context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'analyze_commercial_area' or 'find_competitors', nor does it specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over others. The context is implied (when seeking funding recommendations) but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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