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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that — the tool is free of charge and returns metadata only (no document generation) — but says nothing about what happens with an invalid form key or whether the response is cached/static.

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 and clear, but the same content is stated three times across English, Korean, and a bracketed '[무료]' tag after already saying 'free, no charge'. The bilingual duplication may be intentional for a Korean-form tool, yet the free-of-charge claim is triplicated and wastes space.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and by linking its output to form_document's input. Only failure behavior on an unknown form key is left unstated.

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%: the single `form` parameter is documented with an example and a pointer to form_list for the full key list. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Show the input fields of one Korean form document') and enumerates exactly what is returned (key, label, type, required, example). It also distinguishes itself from sibling form_document by framing its output as the keys to place in form_document's `data`.

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?

It gives a concrete when-to-use condition: when you need to know which keys go into form_document's `data` field. The schema description additionally routes discovery to form_list, so the alternative for listing forms is covered, but there is no explicit statement of when this tool is unnecessary.

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