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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety bar is largely met. The description adds the meaningful fact that the new document is persisted to the document box (hence visible to document_list), but says nothing about failure modes, permissions, or how the created id is returned.

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 compact and front-loaded, but the trailing '무료. [무료]' duplicates the same information twice in a row and wastes space. Structure is fine; the redundant cost tag is dead weight.

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?

Given rich annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient for calling the tool. However, for a creation tool with a nested content payload it omits how template keys are discovered (form_list) and what the caller gets back after creation.

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%, including the nested content object and the request_id idempotency note, so the baseline is 3. The description's '빈 문서 또는 양식으로' simply restates the form parameter's '자유 문서는 빈 문자열' semantics without adding anything new.

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 and resource ('새 문서를 만들고') plus the two creation modes ('빈 문서 또는 양식으로') and the persistence target ('문서함에 저장'). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like document_ai_write, form_ai_fill, or document_update, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to choose this tool over document_ai_write, form_ai_fill, or form_document, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit hint is that creation can be blank or template-based, which the agent must infer from the description alone.

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