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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that entries are sourced from 근로복지공단 서식자료실 and 법제처 with sha256 provenance, which is useful context, but it says nothing about catalog size limits, caching, or whether the catalog can change between calls.

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?

Everything stated is substantive, but it is delivered as one long run-on sentence with nested parentheticals and mid-sentence language switches, which makes the key facts (what is returned, when to call it) harder to scan than a short bulleted structure would be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return shape — and it does, listing every field (파일명, 개정일, sha256, 출처 URL, fillable, slots, slot_labels, stamps). For a one-parameter read-only catalog tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter already has an example value. The description still adds meaning the schema does not: omitting form_id returns the whole catalog, while providing it returns only that form — a behavioral distinction the schema cannot express.

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 names the specific resource (a catalog of 13 산재보험 forms plus the 산업재해조사표) and enumerates exactly what each entry carries: filename, revision date, sha256, source URL, fillable flag, slot names/labels, and stamp names. It also distinguishes the accident-report form's filing destination (지방고용노동관서, not 근로복지공단), which no sibling tool covers.

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 gives an explicit sequencing rule — 'fill_form 전에 이것으로 칸을 고른다' — and states that supplying form_id narrows the result to one form. It does not mention list_required_forms or check_accident_report as alternatives for discovering which forms are needed, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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