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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the cost model (first download 100P, re-download of identical content free within the retention window) and that repeat retrieval of the same content is not re-billed. That is genuinely useful context for a tool annotated readOnlyHint=false but idempotentHint=true. It still omits what the response actually is (file bytes, URL, or task handle).

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 core sentence is front-loaded and short, but the pricing rule is stated three times (prose, "최초 100P, 같은 내용 재다운로드 무료", then a bracketed restatement). That redundancy displaces content that would actually help, such as the return format.

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?

With no output schema and four required parameters, the description should clarify what a successful download yields and how the idempotent request_id/content_hash pair behaves on retry. It covers billing and retention well but leaves the return contract unstated, which is a real gap for a download 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 all four parameters (document_id, version, content_hash, request_id) are already documented in the schema. The description only obliquely touches parameter meaning via "같은 내용" (same content), hinting that content_hash drives the free re-download, but adds no version/hash format or retry semantics of its own.

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?

"편집한 문서를 DOCX로 받습니다" names a specific verb (receive/download) and resource (edited document as DOCX), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as pdf_to_docx (conversion) or document_get, leaving that distinction 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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for pulling an already-edited document after work is done, and the retention-period/free-re-download note hints at repeat calls. There is no explicit "use this when X, use document_quote/document_get when Y" routing, which matters given 36 sibling tools.

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