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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: competition-rate data is returned only when publicly disclosed ("공개된 것만"), so the agent knows fields may be legitimately absent, and application is out of scope.

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-loaded with the resource and immediately enumerates returned fields in a single dense sentence, followed by one short scoping sentence. Nothing is wasted, though the heavy middle-dot packing makes it read as a field list rather than prose.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming every field group the agent will get. Combined with the documented single parameter, an agent has enough to call correctly; only error behavior for an invalid event_id is unaddressed.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains event_id comes from find_singles_events results. The description adds no further syntax, format, or validity information, which is acceptable given the schema handles it — baseline 3.

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 resource and scope ("만남 행사 한 건" – a single event) and enumerates exactly what the record contains: eligibility requirements, schedule, fee, selection method, past competition ratios, and source link. The singular 'one record' framing contrasts naturally with the sibling find_singles_events, which returns a list.

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 closing line "신청은 원문 공지에서 직접" draws a clear boundary: this tool does not submit applications, the agent must send users to the original notice. It does not explicitly name find_singles_events as the way to obtain an event_id, but the schema description already supplies that pointer.

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