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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only but idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that a fresh quote is required and that writing costs 20P after quote approval — which is the kind of cost/authorization detail annotations cannot express. The disclosure is marred by repetition and by never stating what state the job transitions into or what happens on a rejected answer.

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 ends with '견적 승인 후 작성 20P. [견적 승인 후 작성 20P]' — the same pricing line duplicated verbatim in two formats, which reads as a copy-paste artifact and wastes the most prominent closing position. The core guidance (prerequisite quote and point limit) is buried mid-sentence rather than front-loaded.

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 seven-parameter, workflow-stateful mutation with no output schema and many similar siblings, the description should explain how job_id scopes the step, what the confirmation questions are, and what the caller receives back. None of that is covered, and the duplicated pricing fragment adds noise rather than 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 description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters (job_id, text, max_points, request_id, total_max_points, form, edition) are already documented in the schema. The description touches only max_points and the quote notion, adding no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('answering confirmation questions to submit the next step'), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, '다음 단계' (next step) is undefined and the text never distinguishes this tool from close siblings such as document_workflow_apply, document_workflow_quote, and document_workflow_start. The scope of the workflow step being accepted is left ambiguous.

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 hints at prerequisites ('a new quote and max points are required'), which implies a quote-then-submit flow, but it never says when to call this versus document_workflow_apply or document_workflow_start, nor what conditions must be satisfied first. No explicit when-not guidance is present.

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