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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description explains exactly why by disclosing that the call consumes a paid purchase right, charges 100P on first download, and is free for identical content on repeat. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations. It still omits failure behavior (insufficient points, hash/version mismatch) and what the call returns.

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 first three sentences are front-loaded and earn their place, but the trailing bracketed line repeats the pricing statement verbatim, which is pure redundancy. Structure is fine otherwise, with the core action stated first.

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 four-required-parameter, billed mutation with no output schema, the definition covers cost but not the workflow prerequisite (obtaining content_hash from a quote), the return form (bytes vs. link), or error conditions. It is adequate to attempt the call but not complete.

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 schema already explains all four parameters, and the description adds no meaning to document_id, version, content_hash, or request_id. In particular it never connects content_hash ("견적 응답의 내용 해시") to the quote step, which is the non-obvious parameter.

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?

"현재 문서를 PDF로 받습니다" states a specific verb (받다/다운로드) and a specific output format (PDF) for a specific resource (현재 문서), which separates it from the format-agnostic document_download or the multi-file document_download_bundle. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 note about using existing purchase rights and 100P/free re-download tells the agent when the call is cheap, but never says when to pick this over document_download, document_download_bundle, or docx_to_pdf, nor what prerequisite (a prior quote) is required.

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