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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does describe the two-mode read behavior (no slug = list, slug = body) and the content scope, which is useful, but it says nothing about freshness, permissions, or whether the guide content is static or fetched live.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and content scope before the invocation modes and the usage caveat. No filler, though the topic enumeration and the mode explanation slightly overlap in what they convey.

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 and only two optional parameters, the description covers what the tool returns (a list or a guide body) and when to reach for it. It is adequate for the tool's complexity, with only minor gaps around content freshness and retrieval behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates the slug/query semantics ('slug 없이 부르면 목록, slug 를 주면 본문') without adding format, syntax, or matching-behavior detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb (reads) and resource (procedural purchase guides for AI subscriptions), then enumerates the covered topics: S2B flow, budgeting, approval/quotation documents, tax invoices, account issuance. It also distinguishes itself from value-oriented siblings with 「값이 아니라 「어떻게 사나」를 물을 때 쓴다」, so an agent can separate it from get_school_saas_product or quote_school_saas.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition — use it for 'how to buy' questions rather than price/value questions — and explains the two invocation modes (list vs. body). It does not name any sibling tool explicitly, so the routing signal is contextual rather than a direct 'use X instead' instruction.

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