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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing the 72-hour retention after termination and that it does not consume the final download – both behaviors beyond the annotation. The [무료] tag also clarifies cost. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is a compact two-sentence statement that front-loads the primary purpose and immediately follows with the key behavioral constraints. No extraneous words, every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, retention, download-consumption behavior, and cost. Together with annotations, an agent has all necessary information to decide when to call and what to expect.

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% because the job_id parameter already has a description ('소유한 작업 ID'). The tool description does not add parameter-specific details 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 clearly states the verb (조회 – query) and the resource (TTS 발화별 검수 결과와 후보 이력 – utterance-specific inspection results and candidate history). It is distinct from sibling tools like tts_jobs_status (status) and tts_jobs_result (final result), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides context that this tool retrieves quality inspection history and explicitly notes it does not consume the final result download, implying it is for pre-download quality checks. However, it does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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