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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the result is categorical rather than a numeric quantity, and it is a snapshot as of response time. That prevents an agent from mis-reading the return as a count and flags its staleness property.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct payload: what it reads, what the value actually is, and the batch ceiling. Front-loaded with the core action and no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be spelled out, and the annotations carry the safety profile; combined with the description's clarification of result semantics and the time-basis caveat, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the code format, pattern and 1-10 item bounds are already documented. The description's '한 번에 10개까지' merely restates maxItems and adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (짓닷코드로 지금 재고 상태를 본다) and even enumerates the exact result categories, so the operation is unmistakable. It never references its siblings (get_materials, search_materials), so it stops short of explicit differentiation, but the inventory-status domain is clearly distinct.

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 by the input (jitdot codes) and the batch limit, but there is no statement of when to reach for this versus get_materials/search_materials, nor any when-not guidance. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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