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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the acceptance-time window restriction, the returned version, and the rule that requesting a change does not automatically alter the delegation. It does not describe the shape of the response, but the added constraints are the more valuable disclosure here.

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 read, the version, the acceptance window, and the confirmation handling are all front-loaded and compact. Some content is repeated across the English and Korean sentences, but the Korean text carries additional detail rather than a pure duplicate.

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 tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the precondition, side-effect boundaries, and next-step branch. The remaining gap is that 'confirmation' and 'version' appear only in the description with no schema or source telling the agent what their values or provenance are.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'The specified consultation' and '정확한 접수 건' signal it must be the exact request, but the 32-hex format and uniqueness requirement documented in the schema pattern are still not conveyed, so the compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: read whether a given consultation can currently be edited or withdrawn, plus its version. It also scopes the tool ('only before acceptance'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_consultation_change_status or prepare_consultation_change, which leaves a small ambiguity about which read/prepare tool to pick.

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?

Provides a real precondition (only before acceptance) and a conditional next step based on the 'confirmation' value (delegated vs authenticated_web). However, it never names an alternative sibling or says where the 'confirmation' value comes from, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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