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

Beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations it adds real behavioral signal: the link/token is signed-in and expires in 24 h, nothing of the person's is read until an explicit user tap, and there is a two-phase `waiting`→`shared` state machine with a poll_after_s backoff. It stops short of describing failure/expiry handling, but this is meaningful disclosure the annotations alone don't provide.

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 intent is front-loaded, but the prose is an over-dense run-on of em-dashes, parentheses and inline Korean, packing the state machine and output fields into two sprawling sentences. Every fragment carries content, yet the packaging makes it hard to parse quickly.

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 two-phase tool this is fairly complete: it covers both call modes, the polling cadence, and the shape of the `shared` payload. Since an output schema exists, the enumerated return fields (distance, reasons, cautions, formats, shoot_first, references) are more redundant than necessary, but they don't hurt completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that the first call takes no argument and that subsequent calls pass `token` alone. It even clarifies where the token comes from (the link payload), which the schema does not.

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 names a specific resource (체험단 campaigns matching this creator) and what it returns (the shooting order for each campaign's formats), so an agent can grasp the intent. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings such as shorti_campaign_board or shorti_what_to_shoot, leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

It gives explicit procedural context: call with no argument to get the link, have the person tap «AI 대화에 보내기», then call again with the token alone, polling after poll_after_s while status is `waiting`. That is clear usage context, but it never states when to prefer this over the sibling campaign tools or what to do if the person declines.

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