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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds the genuinely useful scoping fact that extra steps and downloads are billed separately, but it says nothing about what the quote response looks like or whether the free result is rate-limited or cached.

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 body is short and front-loaded, but '무료. [무료]' repeats the free-price point twice, once as a bracketed tag, which is wasted space in an already terse 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 simple read-only quoting tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool is and what is not included in the price. It is still thin on the return value (amount, currency, unit) that an agent needs to interpret the quote.

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 documents action, version, and document_id, with action tied to the attachment_review value. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource in Korean: 'confirm the total quote for one step of document analysis', and scopes it by saying additional steps and downloads are separate. That separates it from the sibling document_quote (whole-document quoting) reasonably well, though it never names the sibling 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-check of cost for a single workflow step. There is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of document_quote, document_quota, or the document_workflow_* tools, and no prerequisites are given.

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