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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it discloses exactly which features survive conversion (merged cells as HTML, text boxes, footnotes), which documents are supported (distributable 배포용), what happens to encrypted/DRM files (reported, not converted), and even the payment model ($0.01 USDC via x402 on Base).

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?

Front-loads verb+resource+output, then layers features, source examples, an edge-case boundary, and pricing. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter conversion tool with no output schema, the description covers what is converted, the supported input variants, the failure mode, and the cost. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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?

With a single url parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description does at least establish that the input is a URL pointing at the document, but adds no syntax or format detail (e.g., direct-download requirement, content-type handling). Modest value over the bare schema.

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?

Specific verb (Convert), specific resource (Korean Hancom HWP 5.x or HWPX documents at a URL), and specific output (Markdown with tables preserved). This clearly distinguishes it from generic readers like kr_web_read and from the other kr_* data tools.

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 'Typical sources' clause and the 'Encrypted or DRM files are reported, not converted' boundary give real usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like kr_web_read, nor any statement of prerequisites beyond the URL.

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