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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the model/parameters are server-fixed, responses are optimized for speed, and points are deducted per request regardless of token count. It also discloses the 100-point cost, which is useful operational context.

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 English first sentence is clear and front-loaded, and the cost/model details are compact and useful. However, the Korean sentence largely repeats the same information as the English sentence, adding redundancy without substantial new content.

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 one-parameter, read-only summarization tool, the description is largely complete: it specifies the input limit, output language, server behavior, and cost. There is no output schema, but the return value is implied as the Korean summary text. Minor details like behavior when the limit is exceeded are not specified, but this is not critical.

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?

The input schema already describes the only param, text, with its 100,000-character limit, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description repeats the limit but adds little new parameter semantics beyond clarifying the output is Korean. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Summarize'), a clear resource ('long text up to 100,000 characters'), and a concrete output ('concise Korean summary'). This clearly distinguishes it from image and chat siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the closely related text_polish tool.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as text_polish or llm_chat. The purpose is inferable, but there are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or routing rules to help an agent choose between text_summary and text_polish.

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