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 one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: "무료" signals the call consumes no quota/credits, which is useful for planning. However, it says nothing about return contents, ordering, or behavior on a document with zero attachments, and the "[무료]" repetition adds no information.

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 core sentence is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the trailing "무료. [무료]" repeats the same information twice in two formats, so a third of the text is redundant. Trimming to the single functional sentence would be cleaner.

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?

This is a low-complexity read with one fully documented parameter and a readOnly annotation, and no output schema exists. The description is adequate to invoke the tool, but since no output schema is provided it could have said what an attachment entry looks like (name, size, URL) to help the agent use the result.

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% for the single required parameter (document_id, "내 문서 ID"), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description's "내 문서의" only loosely reinforces that the ID must belong to the caller's own document, which is a marginal addition.

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?

"내 문서의 첨부 목록을 확인합니다" states a specific verb (확인/list) and resource (첨부 목록, attachment list) scoped to one document. The noun "목록" distinguishes it from the sibling attachment mutations (document_attachment_add / document_attachment_remove), though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., document must exist / be finalized), and no mention of alternatives such as document_get or document_attachment_add. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name.

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