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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: draft state is "확인 대기", nothing opens, no charge, confirmUrl must be relayed, admin token goes to the host, and the deadline ordering rule (closesAt before paperClosesAt for bldg). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs for a non-idempotent, non-destructive write.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries operational information. It is a dense run-on paragraph with some restatement of the schema (hash formula, closesAt rule), which costs a point.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value cue (confirmUrl), the state semantics, and the host-side follow-up steps. An agent could invoke this correctly from the description alone.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-field constraints (bldg preset keys via get_resolution_requirement, closesAt must be the day before paperClosesAt, roster hash formula and weight semantics). It partly repeats schema text, limiting it to 4.

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+resource ("집회 초안을 만든다") and contrasts a draft with a live vote, so the agent knows this does not open anything. It doesn't name a specific sibling, but the roster alternative (host uploads Excel via dashboard) implicitly points to upload_roster.

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?

Explains the workflow clearly: create draft → relay confirmUrl to host → host verifies with phone auth/payment → voting opens. It also gives the when-to-skip path for roster (host uploads it). Lacks explicit exclusion against other creation/close siblings, but context is strong.

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