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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety bar is met. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: scanning the code connects without entering a password, and open networks should use security=nopass. It omits the output artifact format (image/QR/printable), which is the one behavioral detail an agent might still need.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the user-facing benefit, then the use case, then the edge case. No filler; only slight redundancy with the schema on the nopass rule.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what is produced, but it never states the return artifact (e.g. an image, QR, or file). For a generation tool with 5 parameters and a rich enum-bearing schema, this is the main missing piece.

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% – ssid, shape capacities, hidden, password and the security enum are all documented in the schema. The description only restates the open-network rule ('개방망이면 security 를 nopass 로'), which the schema already conveys via 'nopass = 개방망'. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource: it turns Wi-Fi connection info into a WIA Code. The Wi-Fi specialization clearly distinguishes it from siblings like generate_wia_code_card or generate_wia_code_event, though those siblings are never named.

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?

Gives implied usage context ('카페·사무실·숙소 안내' – cafe/office/accommodation signage) and a conditional tip for open networks. However, it never says when to prefer this over the sibling code generators or what prerequisites exist, so the routing guidance is only inferred.

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