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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the description's added value is the process constraints: current review/journey/request versions and delegation are all required, and the agent must not claim the request was accepted before a success receipt. That is meaningful pre/post-condition context beyond the annotations. Error behavior and what the receipt contains are not covered.

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?

It is short but not front-loaded well: the first English clause is awkward and restates the gating condition that the Korean sentences then repeat. The key operational rule (don't report submission before a success receipt) is buried at the end rather than leading.

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 six-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the essential agent-facing concerns: what must be true beforehand (confirmed preview, consent reported via continue, server-submit signal, current versions), and what must not be claimed afterward. Remaining gaps (receipt contents, version-mismatch behavior) are secondary.

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 all six required params are opaque id/version fields with only patterns and minimums, meaning the description must carry the load. It does gesture at the required inputs ('현재 review와 journey/request 버전 및 위임'), mapping loosely to review_id, journey_id/request_id and the version fields, but it never explains the distinction between revision, delegation_version and expected_journey_revision, so concurrency semantics remain ambiguous.

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 states a specific action (submit the confirmed preview / 접수) on the consultation-request resource, and distinguishes it from preparation siblings by requiring a confirmed preview plus an explicit server 'submit' signal. The opening English sentence is garbled ('only with current delegation and the server submission action'), which slightly blunts clarity, but the resource and effect are recoverable.

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?

It gives a concrete precondition: only submit after showing the final summary/cost/scope and reporting user consent via continue, and only when the server has indicated submit. That effectively routes the agent to continue_consultation_request first rather than submitting directly. It lacks an explicit 'do not call if…' exclusion list, so it stops 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.