answer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the output contents (analysis, complexity, dual-language code), which partially compensates for the absent output schema, but says nothing about guarantees of correctness despite claiming '최적의 정답 코드', nor about permissions, limits, or failure behavior.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the input and then lists the outputs in a logical order. Nothing is padded, though it is too terse to be maximally useful rather than verbose.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does so at a high level. However, for a tool that emits analysis plus full source code in two languages, the absence of any note on output shape, language selection, or size makes it only minimally complete.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('백준 문제 번호'), so the schema already documents it. The description restates that it takes a problem ID but adds no format or range guidance, and does not clarify the string-or-integer anyOf. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific input (Baekjoon problem ID) and three concrete outputs (problem analysis, complexity calculation, optimal code in C++ and JavaScript), which is more than the terse name 'answer' conveys. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like hint, testcase, or refactor, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus hint, testcase, or refactor, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only says what it produces, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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