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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the non-destructive read behavior is covered. The description adds that it returns title, body, and version — useful context beyond the annotations — but says nothing about errors, permissions, or whether the version is a single current version or history. The trailing '무료. [무료]' adds no behavioral 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 purpose is front-loaded in one efficient sentence, but the redundant '무료. [무료]' duplication is pure filler and dilutes the definition. Removing it would make the description tighter without losing information.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the returned fields (title, body, version), which compensates for the missing output schema. Only the lack of usage guidance against siblings keeps it from being fully complete.

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% with a single required document_id already documented in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no further meaning about document_id format or where it comes from (e.g., from document_list); 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?

The description names the specific resource (저장한 문서) and the verb (확인합니다), plus the exact fields returned: 제목·본문·버전. This makes it distinguishable from document_list or document_download, though it never names those siblings 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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as document_list (listing multiple documents) or document_download (fetching file content). The only hint is the word 저장한, which implies retrieving a previously saved document by ID.

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