check_invoice_eligibility

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool synthesizes multiple factors (tax type, closure status) and outputs a determination with reasoning, but it does not address permissions, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core function in the first sentence. The second sentence about being a differentiation tool is somewhat unnecessary but not verbose, so the overall structure is efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the core logic and mentions providing a rationale, which is helpful, but it does not specify the exact return structure or errors. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this is moderately complete but not fully.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter business_no as '사업자등록번호' (business registration number), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter nuance, matching the baseline score for fully covered schemas.

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 evaluates tax type and business closure status to determine eligibility for receiving tax invoices, and provides the rationale. It distinguishes itself by noting it is '순수 래퍼 대비 차별화 도구', implying a more integrated analysis than a simple wrapper, which sets it apart from sibling tools.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The phrase about being a 'differentiation tool' relative to a pure wrapper is vague and does not mention alternatives, scenarios, or exclusions.

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