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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses real behavior: never invents names, numbers, amounts, or dates absent from the text and leaves those blanks empty; narrative fields are rephrased strictly from stated facts; no file is produced. It also gives the cost model (20 points per call, not charged on failure), which is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose and no-hallucination rule are front-loaded, and each sentence adds operational value. The pricing statement is repeated twice ('요청당 20P...' and '[호출당 20포인트]'), and the English/Korean restatement of the same content is slightly redundant, which costs a point.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value, and it does: values keyed to the form's fields, with blanks left where the text has no fact. Combined with the explicit next-step handoff to form_document and the billing policy, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 form/data/text are already documented in the schema, and the description adds little per-parameter syntax beyond clarifying that only facts present in the text are used. The 'keep already-set data, fill the rest' behavior is already in the data property description, so the description largely duplicates rather than extends the schema.

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: read a plain-language situation description and fill the fields of one Korean form document, returning values only, not a file. It explicitly distinguishes itself from form_document by noting that the returned values must be passed to form_document's data to actually produce a document.

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?

Gives clear operational context: use this when you have a free-text situation and want field values, then route the result into form_document to create the file. It does not state explicit exclusions or the reverse case (e.g. 'use form_fields instead if you only need field names'), so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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