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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the nature of the tool as a status check, mentions the 30-day expiration context, and lists possible return statuses (claimed, expired, agent_verify_email_sent, agent_claimed). This gives the agent a good understanding of the tool's behavior and outcome, though it does not state whether it is read-only or if any side effects occur.

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 description is well-structured with sections for usage, arguments, and returns, making it easy to scan. The bilingual presentation adds some redundancy (the first sentence is repeated in Korean), but the usage scenarios are solely in Korean and provide useful detail. Overall, it is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple one-parameter status check tool, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, specific usage scenarios, parameter origin, and return statuses. Although an output schema exists, the description still enriches the return value understanding. It is complete and leaves no major gaps for the agent to infer.

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 input schema only defines claim_token as a string with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description compensates by explaining that claim_token comes from the upload_skill_draft response, which is essential for correct usage. It also implies the token's role in identifying the draft. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though it could include an example or format.

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 tool's function: 'Check the status of a draft skill upload using a claim_token.' The verb 'Check' and resource 'draft skill upload' are specific, and the mention of claim_token distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_vetting_status. The Korean subtitle also reinforces the purpose.

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 '사용 시점' (usage scenarios) section explicitly lists three concrete situations for using this tool: checking if a person completed verification via claim_url, if the agent-level verify email was processed, and if the draft was claimed or expired within 30 days. This gives clear context on when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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