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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description adds value by disclosing non-persistence ('입력을 저장하지 않는다'), non-mutating behavior ('고치지 않고'), and the return shape as issues bucketed into error/warn/info. It does not describe the structure of an individual issue (field key, message, code) or any volume limits, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Purpose and the no-fix/no-store disclaimers are front-loaded, and the middle parenthetical compactly enumerates the check coverage so the agent knows how far to trust it. The enumeration is long and packs fifteen-plus rules into one run-on, which costs some scannability, but little here is genuinely wasted.

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 describing results and does so at a summary level (issues categorized error/warn/info), plus it states the non-persistence and non-judgment boundaries. For a two-parameter, read-only validator this is nearly sufficient; only the per-issue record shape is left unspecified.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds domain meaning beyond the schema: it explains that the deadline reference date is one month from the occurrence date with Civil Act arts. 157/160 adjustments, which clarifies what `today` actually drives. It does not map individual `values` keys to the specific checks performed, so the nested object still relies on the schema plus `fill_form` naming.

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 first clause names a specific verb and target: it inspects the `values` that would be passed to `fill_form(form_id='F_INDUSTRIAL_ACCIDENT_REPORT')`, and it closes by stating it neither fixes nor judges. An agent can immediately tell this is a pre-submit validator rather than the writer (`fill_form`) or the guide (`get_accident_report_guide`).

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?

Positioning is clear — this is the check step for values destined for `fill_form`, and the scope exclusions (no determination of industrial-accident status or liability) tell the agent what not to ask of it. It stops short of an explicit sequencing instruction (e.g. 'call before fill_form; if you only want to write, use fill_form'), so the when-vs-alternative routing is inferred rather than stated.

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