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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuine context beyond them: it declares that inputs are not persisted and, importantly, that READY_TO_SUBMIT means 'submittable, not approved' — a semantic caveat about the output an agent could not get from structured fields. It does not explain what drives CONDITIONAL versus REQUIRED or what the 'unanswered questions' output implies for follow-up 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return contents, followed by the no-persistence guarantee and the status caveat — no filler. The long parenthetical lists are dense but every item carries roster information the agent would otherwise have to extract from enums.

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 return-value burden and does it: it enumerates the output categories with their status vocabularies (REQUIRED/CONDITIONAL/NOT_APPLICABLE, PROVIDED/MISSING/SUBSTITUTABLE) plus legal articles, procedure guidance and open questions. Combined with a fully described input schema and annotations, an agent has enough to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 parenthetical claim list maps term-for-term onto the nine claim enum values (YOYANG, HUYEOP, CARE_TRANSPORT_DEVICE, JANGHAE, YUJOK, UNPAID, ADDITIONAL_DISEASE, RE_YOYANG, SELF_PAY), giving business meaning to otherwise opaque codes. The `have`, `tags`, and the UNDECLARED sentinel semantics are not elaborated in the description, relying on the 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?

The description names a concrete verb (돌려준다/returns) and a precisely scoped resource: required forms, attachments, legal basis articles, procedure guidance and unanswered questions for industrial-accident compensation claims, enumerating all nine claim types. It is clearly a computed checklist/advisory tool rather than a catalog or a form-filler, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the close sibling get_form_catalog, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the pre-submission checklist step that consumes claim/accident facts, and the READY_TO_SUBMIT caveat hints at when its output matters. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_form_catalog or fill_form, and no stated prerequisites for calling it.

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