create_bid_review_memo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates a structured 9-section memo from overview to CEO decision in Korean. However, it does not describe the output format, any side effects, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 a single concise sentence with an additional required parameter note, containing no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and key requirement, though structure could be improved with separation of sections.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and required parameter. However, it lacks details on return value, prerequisites, or error handling, making it minimally adequate for a memo generation tool.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter insights beyond reiterating that bidNo is required, achieving the baseline expectation.

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 creates a 9-section bid review memo in Korean for a specific announcement, enabling CEO decision-making. It uses a specific verb '작성' and resource '입찰 검토 메모', distinguishing it from sibling tools which are about retrieving or searching bid data.

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 indicates the tool is used to write a memo for a specific announcement and notes that bidNo is required. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, leaving usage context implied rather than stated.

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