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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context in the required time format and the scan-to-calendar effect, but says nothing about what the tool returns (a code string? an image?), which is a real gap for a generator with no output schema.

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 with zero filler: what is produced, what scanning does, and the exact time format. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated.

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 code generator with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, scan behavior and input format adequately. It leaves the return value unspecified and does not address the capacity constraints noted in the enum (e.g. the small star/boomerang limits), which an agent producing content would benefit from knowing.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the time format, shape enum and capacity table. The description merely restates the '2026-09-01 19:00' time format that the start/end descriptions already give, adding no syntax or meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — generating a WIA Code that wraps a calendar event in standard iCalendar — and the event domain implicitly separates it from the card/wifi siblings. It does not, however, name any sibling tool explicitly, so the agent must infer the routing from content type alone.

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 '일정' (schedule/event) plus the outcome 'scanning adds it to a calendar', which tells the agent this is the right tool when a calendar event is wanted. There is no explicit when-not guidance and the generic generate_wia_code sibling is never mentioned as an alternative.

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