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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a cost of 20P per successful request, which matters for an agent deciding whether to call. It does not clarify whether suggestions are only returned or also written into the document, which is the key ambiguity left against readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, but the cost is stated twice ('성공한 요청당 20P' and a bare '[20P]'), which is redundant. The capability list is packed into a single clause without structure, so the three modes are harder to scan than they need to be.

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 5-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description leaves the return shape entirely unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether it receives suggested text, a diff, or an updated document, nor how to apply the suggestion afterward. The cost note is the only operational detail provided.

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 explains text, history, document, selection and request_id, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only an implicit mapping ('입력 근거에 따른' → history/document grounding, '선택 문장 수정' → selection) rather than explicit per-parameter semantics.

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 lists three capabilities (항목 채우기, 선택 문장 수정, 서식 추천) under a verb of '제안받습니다' (receive suggestions), which conveys the general idea of an AI writing assistant. However, it never states the resource explicitly (a document? a form?) and does not distinguish this from close siblings such as document_ai_write or form_ai_fill, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the text alone.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named despite several plausible overlapping siblings (document_ai_write, form_ai_fill, document_review). The only contextual signal is the point cost, which tells the agent to be sparing but not when to choose this tool over another.

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