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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses currency (KRW), that VAT is excluded, the plan structure, and the free allowance of 3 AI drafts. It does not say whether prices are current or how often they change, but for a static informational lookup this is solid disclosure.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource, then plan types, then currency/VAT caveats, then the free tier. Every clause carries information; minor density from stacked parentheticals but no wasted sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does: build plans, monthly care plans, currency, VAT treatment, and free-draft allowance. For a zero-param informational tool this is nearly everything an agent needs to decide to call it and trust the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information because there is none to add, which is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (GYEOL pricing for a small-business website) and enumerates the content buckets: one-time build plans, monthly care plans covering hosting/inquiries/AI edits, and the free tier. That clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools gyeol_make_draft and gyeol_read_site, which act on drafts and sites rather than explaining pricing.

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?

Usage is implied – an agent answering a pricing or free-tier question would pick this – but nothing states when to call it versus gyeol_make_draft or gyeol_read_site, nor any exclusions. It reads as a catalog entry rather than a routing instruction.

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