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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the response contains applyUrl, a personal matching score, per-condition judgments, and the isContest flag semantics, plus the explicit note that the tool does not submit an application — a non-obvious behavioral boundary.

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 purpose in the first clause, then follow-up guidance on applyUrl and contest handling. Every sentence is relevant, though the contest/label instruction is a bit conversational and could be tightened without loss.

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 returns and does so well (content, eligibility, applyUrl, matching score, condition verdicts, contest flag). The only gap is how a caller first obtains a programId, which is relegated to the schema rather than stated in the description.

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 programId and profileId are already fully documented, including where programId originates and that profileId defaults to the representative profile. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (조회합니다) and resource (지원사업 공고 1건의 상세), and enumerates what comes back: 지원 내용, 자격 요건, applyUrl, 매칭 점수, 조건별 판정. This clearly separates it from the list/search siblings like list_support_matches and search_support_programs, which surface many programs rather than one detail.

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 downstream guidance ('if the user wants to apply, point them to applyUrl; the user must apply themselves'), which is useful, but never states the upstream condition for calling this tool — e.g. that a programId must first come from list_support_matches/search_support_programs. That routing hint lives only in the schema, not the description, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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