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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful precondition tied to verification, but omits what finalization actually does to the document (locking, immutability, version consumption) and why the hash is required for safety. Repeated '무료' pricing text adds no behavioral information.

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 precondition is front-loaded in a single efficient sentence. However, '무료. [무료]' is duplicated filler that consumes attention without adding information, which is a clear structural inefficiency in an otherwise short description.

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 3-required-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the key thing an agent needs — the verification gate — is stated. What is missing is the postcondition (what the finalized state means and whether it is reversible), which limits it slightly.

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 three parameters (document_id, version, verification_hash) are already documented, including that the hash comes from the prior verification response. The description adds no further parameter semantics such as what happens on a stale version or mismatched hash.

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 action (확정/finalize to 완성본) and states the scope (현재 버전의 검증 결과). An agent can tell it produces a final document rather than a review or verification, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like document_verify or document_review.

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 an explicit gating condition: use only when the verification of the current version has no blocking items (차단 항목이 없을 때만). That is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative tools or telling the agent what to do when blocking items exist.

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