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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that no draft or submission is created, reinforcing that this is side-effect free. It does not describe the shape of the returned guidance, but the annotations carry most of the behavioral burden 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?

Front-loaded with the English summary of what is explained and the exclusion, then Korean detail. There is mild duplication between the English sentence and the Korean body, but no wasted explanation.

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 zero-parameter read-only info tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description tells the agent what subject matter the answer covers (fees, privacy, request process) and what it will not do. Only the exact return format is left implicit, which is acceptable for a static guidance tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores a 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics and only scopes the topic the call answers.

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 (Explain) plus exactly what content is covered: Bokdaeri consultation fees, privacy, and request process. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings that create drafts or submissions, so an agent can tell it apart from prepare_consultation_request and submit_consultation_request without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('도구 열기나 서비스 질문에는 이 도구를 쓰고') and an explicit exclusion ('초안이나 접수를 만들지 않습니다'), which steers the agent away from the draft/submit path. It describes the alternatives functionally rather than naming sibling tools directly, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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