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 context: results are capped at 5, sorted by most recent, and each item carries a `manageable` flag where only true items can lead to prepare-modify/withdraw flows while read-only ones expose status only. The instruction not to conclude from truncated summaries is a real behavioral constraint on how the agent should chain to siblings.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with scope and cap. The English first line largely restates the Korean opening sentence, which is minor duplication but not harmful given the bilingual audience.

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 still conveys the useful return shape: up to 5 recency-ordered items scoped to the connection, each with a `manageable` flag governing which downstream prepare/apply tools apply. That, plus the candidate-selection guidance, covers what an agent needs to call and route results correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain the result cap ('최대 5건') and the recency ordering, which aligns with the `limit` maximum of 5, but the `cursor` parameter and its pagination role are never mentioned, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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 ('list consultation requests') with explicit scope ('belonging to the authenticated connection') and ordering ('최근 접수순으로 최대 5건'). The Korean sentence makes clear this is a discovery tool for when the user lacks a consultation ID, which distinguishes it from the status/get siblings.

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: use it when the user does not know the consultation ID and needs to find a target. It also instructs the agent to let the user pick among multiple candidates rather than inferring from a truncated summary. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead when an ID is known, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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