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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false; the description adds the substantive behavior: submissions land in a review queue and stay unpublished until an operator approves them, and duplicate detection returns the existing event instead of writing. Both are consistent with the idempotent and non-read-only hints.

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, purpose front-loaded, each carrying distinct information (queue target, required payload, approval gating, duplicate behavior, invocation condition). No filler, though the required-field enumeration partially restates what the schema mandates.

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 21-parameter, 13-required tool the description covers the create path well, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. However it never mentions the second mode — editing a prior submission via reportId + editKey — nor the offline/hybrid restriction, both of which affect whether the agent should call this tool.

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 schema already explains every field, including enums, formats, and bounds. The description enumerates the required set (schedule, topic, venue, coordinates, description, url) and explains why completeness matters for approval, but adds no format or usage detail beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('지도에 없는 행사를 운영자 검토 대기열에 올립니다') and scopes it to events not already on the map. It doesn't name the sibling report_event_change, which handles corrections to existing events, so the boundary with that sibling must be inferred.

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?

'사용자가 제보하겠다고 할 때만 부르세요' gives an explicit gating condition, and the duplicate clause tells the agent not to create a new entry for already-mapped events. Missing is a named alternative (e.g. report_event_change for change requests), so the routing rule is clear but incomplete.

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