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

Beyond the static annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses concrete behavioral outcomes by listing the exact summary statuses the tool returns (e.g., 'claimed, expired, agent_verify_email_sent'). This is crucial operational context.

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 tool definition is well-structured, utilizing clear headings (Purpose, Usage, Args, Returns) to segment information. The content is dense and highly efficient, leaving no room for ambiguity.

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?

The definition is extremely complete. It covers the lifecycle of the draft, the exact required input, the context for invocation, and the resulting possible states, making it fully self-sufficient for an AI agent.

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 description specifies the precise origin of the claim_token—that it must be the token returned by 'upload_skill_draft'. While the schema covers the type, the description adds essential provenance context.

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 purpose as checking the status of a draft skill using a specific claim_token. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like 'upload_skill_draft' by its read-only nature and checking function.

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 provides highly explicit usage guidance, outlining three detailed scenarios ('사용 시점') where the tool should be invoked, such as verifying user claim completion or checking for 30-day expiration.

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