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

Annotations only provide hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description adds meaningful behavioral context: a staff member replies by email within one business day, and name/email must be obtained directly from the user and never fabricated. This is valuable beyond the structured fields.

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 dense sentences cover purpose, response SLA, when-to-use conditions, and a critical data-integrity rule. No filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers core invocation needs: purpose, timing, alternatives, and required user data provenance. It could add what the tool call returns to the agent, but the essential guidance for correct invocation is present.

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. The description adds extra semantic weight by emphasizing that contactName and contactEmail must be explicitly confirmed from the user and must not be invented, reinforcing the schema's '사용자에게 확인' notes.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: '상담·견적 문의를 접수합니다' (receives consultation/quote inquiries). It further distinguishes when to use this tool from orderable-product flows via 'aiOrderable=false 인 상품', making its role unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for aiOrderable=false products, when the catalog lacks the requested item, or when the user wants to talk to a human. It does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly or state when-not-to-use conditions, but the usage context is clear.

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