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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the checklist merges a built-in version with session empirical data (권한상승·순서·비용·이벤트), but does not state side effects, idempotency, authentication requirements, or what happens when session data is absent.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential detail about merging built-in and session data. Every sentence 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?

Given a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic functionality. However, it omits the return format and does not clarify if the tool is idempotent, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 single parameter 'dimension' is described in the schema with example values, and the tool description mentions '차원별' aligning with it. However, the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a full checklist per dimension, specifically a '차원별 전수 체크리스트(증거 없이 PASS 금지)', which is a distinct verb-resource pair. Among sibling tools (e.g., spider_plan, spider_classify_tier), no other tool returns a checklist, so differentiation is inherent.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, such as spider_classify_tier or spider_plan. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusion conditions, or alternatives.

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