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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: where the token must appear (saaskr.json or homepage meta tag) and the 1-hour automatic maker-verification SLA. The auto-completion implies a downstream state change that sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint, and no error/retry behavior is described.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the directory context, the verification action, and the outcome, with no filler. The colon-joined structure packs several ideas into one sentence, which is efficient though slightly dense.

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 two-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the two places the token is looked for, and the resulting outcome. What is missing is failure handling (token absent or malformed) and confirmation of what a successful check returns.

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 100%, and both parameters (slug, token) are already documented in the schema, including that the token is the saaskr-verify-… value from claim_korean_saas. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (확인/verify) and resource (whether the token issued by claim_korean_saas has been published on the official site), and it names the sibling that produces the input token. It does not, however, distinguish itself from check_korean_saas_submission, so a sibling boundary is left for the agent to infer.

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?

The description establishes the prerequisite workflow by stating the token comes from claim_korean_saas, which tells the agent when in the sequence to call this tool. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or contrast with check_korean_saas_submission.

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