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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: it mentions the internal schedule engine calculation, inclusion of parallel processes, curing waits, and reserve days. It also clarifies the output (per-bar days, daily schedule, total duration). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, leading with the core function, then the calculation details, then usage examples. It is not excessively verbose, though it packs several clauses into one sentence. Efficient for the information conveyed.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately specifies what the tool returns (per-bar days, daily schedule, total duration) and what inputs it accepts. It does not detail the exact output structure, but it is sufficient for an agent to know the tool's behavior.

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?

The single parameter 'pyeong' is already well-documented in the schema (default 30, min 10, max 80). The description reinforces it ('평수를 주면') and adds a hint about the typical range (15~65), but this is slightly inconsistent with the schema's wider range. Overall, the description adds little beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool returns a 22-step process order with business days and total duration for a given pyeong, with specific example queries. It distinguishes itself from siblings like nmjib_cost_reference or nmjib_checklist by focusing on schedule and sequence.

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 lists example questions (e.g., 'process order', 'how many days', 'wallpaper vs flooring first') that indicate when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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