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 non-obvious behavioral context: it is [무료] (no cost), and it enumerates the returned content (I/O format, base/expected amounts, processing cap, examples), which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

Two short sentences plus a cost tag, purpose front-loaded ('Skill 의 입력·출력 형식...확인합니다') with the usage note second. No filler, though the return-content list is slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the fields exposed. Combined with the free-cost disclosure and the pre-run usage note, an agent has enough to select and call it, though sibling differentiation is thin.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents skill_id, including the hint that it comes from search_skills. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not value-adding.

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?

Specific verb (확인합니다) plus resource (Skill) and an enumeration of what is exposed – 입출력 형식, 기본/예상 금액, 처리 상한, 예제. This makes retrieval scope clear, though it never names which sibling it differs from (e.g. quote_skill, which also concerns amounts).

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?

'실행 전에 입력 형식을 맞추는 데 씁니다' gives a real usage context (pre-run format alignment), but names no alternatives and leaves the overlap with quote_skill unexplained given both touch amounts. Implied rather than explicit routing.

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