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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the call is free of charge, that no file is created, and what the response contains (interpreted values, empty required fields, malformed formats). No output schema exists, so this return-content disclosure is doing useful work.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the handoff sentence, which is good structure. It is slightly wasteful in repeating the free-of-charge point three times ('free, no charge', '[무료]') across the English and Korean renderings, though the bilingual mirroring aids usability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so: interpreted results, missing required fields, and invalid formats are all named. Combined with the no-file-generation and no-charge guarantees plus the sibling handoff, an agent has everything needed to call it 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% and the schema already documents the text/data precedence rule, the form key example, and the auto-recognition of phone/address/amount/date. The description only restates that both free-form sentences and structured fields are accepted, adding little beyond the structured fields, 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?

States a specific verb (preview) and resource (Korean form filling) with explicit scope: 'without generating a file.' It names the sibling it hands off to (form_document), and the schema points to form_list, so an agent can place it among its siblings without opening any schema.

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?

The description gives a clear usage sequence: preview and fix values first, then call form_document to actually produce the document. It leaves implicit that this is the pre-flight check rather than the generation step, but the routing to the alternative is explicit and actionable.

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