hint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful boundary — that the output is a hint and never the solution code — but says nothing about rate limits, authentication, or the format/verbosity of the hint. With a read-only lookup this is adequate but thin.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the action and output, the second states the constraint. The information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description usefully characterizes what comes back (core idea plus algorithm classification) and the boundary on output. It stops short of describing hint granularity or failure behavior, keeping it just below fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents 'problemId' as 백준 문제 번호. The description adds no syntax, format, or range detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (제공) and resource (핵심 아이디어와 알고리즘 분류 힌트) scoped to a Baekjoon problem ID, and explicitly carves out what it does not do (정답 코드는 제공하지 않습니다), which separates it from the 'answer' sibling. It does not distinguish itself from 'testcase' or 'refactor', so it falls short of a full 5.

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 negative clause ('does not provide answer code') implicitly steers the agent away from this tool when a full solution is wanted, which is useful routing. However, there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool (e.g., when stuck or before attempting a solution), so usage is only implied.

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