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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by naming what comes back (status, confirmation questions, drafts, verification results), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not cover polling behavior or what a 'not ready' state looks like, keeping it short of a 5.

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 content sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but "무료. [무료]" repeats the same pricing claim twice and contributes nothing to tool selection. A short description should not spend a third of its length on a duplicated cost note.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose and the shape of the return payload, which is close to sufficient. What is missing is the workflow lifecycle context (how job_id is obtained, what state to poll for, what to do with returned questions), which matters given six sibling workflow tools.

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 100% and the single job_id parameter is documented in the schema as "내 문서 작업 ID". The description adds nothing about where a job_id comes from or whether it is the same ID used by the other workflow tools, so baseline 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?

"내 문서 작업의 상태·확인 질문·초안·검증 결과를 조회합니다" states a specific verb (조회) plus the exact resource and even enumerates the four content categories returned. It is clearly the read counterpart to document_workflow_start/answer/apply, though it never names those siblings to draw the line explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this after starting a workflow, whether it should be polled, or why an agent would pick it over document_get or document_workflow_quote. Usage is only inferable from the word 조회 and the tool name.

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