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 genuinely new context: the catalog is free of charge ("[무료]", "free, no charge"), contains roughly 200 entries, and returns key/name/category/field-count per item. It does not address pagination or response size for a 200-item list, which is the main remaining gap.

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 key facts are front-loaded, but the English and Korean halves are near-complete duplicates of the same content, roughly doubling length without adding information. The bracketed [무료] tag also repeats the free-of-charge statement already made in the first sentence.

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, fully-documented, read-only listing tool, the description covers purpose, filters, returned fields, cost, and the prerequisite workflow step. The only meaningful omission is how a large result set is returned or paged.

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%, and the two parameters are already documented there, including that omitting category returns everything. The description's note that keyword narrows by name and purpose largely restates the schema, so it meets the baseline without adding syntax or matching-behavior detail.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (list the Korean form documents) and quantifies the corpus (200 forms) plus returned fields (key, name, category, field count). It explicitly names the related sibling form_document as the consumer of the keys, so an agent can tell it apart from form_fields, form_preview, and form_ai_fill.

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?

States the triggering context clearly: use it before generating a document, when picking a form key. It does not explicitly exclude the other form_* catalog siblings (form_fields, form_preview) or say what to do if a keyword matches nothing, but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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