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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world, and non-destructive, so safety is fully covered by structured data. The description's added value is the content inventory of what the response contains, which is useful given there is no output schema. But it says nothing about response shape, size, or completeness beyond the topic list.

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?

It is front-loaded with the Korean label before the topic list, which is good. However, the entire content is duplicated across Korean and English, roughly doubling length without adding new information for a single reader.

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 telling the agent what comes back, and the topic inventory does that reasonably well. The only gap is that it does not clarify whether all topics are always returned or whether they are summarized in a fixed format.

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% with a single optional 'language' enum defaulting to 'ko', fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter guidance (e.g., which language to choose for which audience), so 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?

It clearly states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('Doply service overview') and then enumerates the exact domains covered (testers, period, devices, pricing, sales channels, org accounts, MCP key). This makes it distinguishable from siblings like get_contact, get_requirements, and search_faq without needing to inspect any schema.

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 topic list implies when to reach for this tool (pricing questions, device questions, getting an MCP key), but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing against search_faq or get_requirements. An agent must infer routing from the topic list alone.

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