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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds important context: it explicitly states '돈이 나가지 않는 안전한 호출입니다' (safe call that doesn't take money) and that the quoteToken is valid for 15 minutes. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the safety and time-sensitivity. The description also reveals the return includes total, point balance, and shortage, which is valuable behavioral context.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the purpose '1단계 견적을 요청합니다', and then lists key return values and safety. Every sentence earns its place: the step hierarchy, the return details, the validity period, and the safety reassurance. No fluff.

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?

For a quote tool with an output schema absent, the description explains the return values sufficiently (total, point balance, shortage, quoteToken). It covers the safety and validity period. However, it doesn't explain how the quoteToken should be used in subsequent steps (e.g., create_order), which could be inferred from sibling names but is not explicit. Also, formData and templateOption parameters are not elaborated in the description, but they are covered in the schema. Overall, complete enough given the annotations.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add much beyond the schema, except that 'quantity' combined with 'productId' yields total amount (unit price × quantity), which is a semantic relationship not explicitly in the schema. This slight addition justifies a 3 instead of a lower score, but baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb '견적을 요청합니다' (request quote) and the resource (order). It distinguishes this as step 1 of the order process, differentiating it from create_order and other order-related siblings. The scope is specific: it returns total, point balance, shortage, and a quoteToken.

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 description implies this is the first step before creating an order (create_order), suggesting when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to siblings like get_product, but the step indicator '1단계' gives clear contextual guidance. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but sufficient for most agents.

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