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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word '참고값' usefully signals that the result is a reference/estimate rather than a guaranteed bill, and '24개월' scopes the calculation. Still, it does not disclose assumptions, input relationships, or whether outputs are purely informational.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaningful information: the type of calculation, the inputs, and the 24-month reference-value nature of the result.

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 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably invoke the tool correctly. It omits how optional and mutually relevant mobile-related parameters behave and gives no information about the return format or limitations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only names generic concepts: carrier, internet tier, and vague 'mobile line conditions'. It does not clarify the roles of iptv, mobileLines, mobilePlanFees, or mobileMonthlyTotal, nor how they should be supplied together.

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 states a specific action ('계산합니다' / calculates), a precise resource ('24개월 결합할인 참고값' / 24-month bundle discount reference value), and the main inputs (carrier, internet tier, mobile line conditions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that calculate penalties, total cost of ownership, or search verified products.

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 implies the appropriate use case: calculating a 24-month bundle discount reference value from telecom and internet conditions. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as calculate_mobile_tco or calculate_contract_penalty, nor does it mention exclusions.

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