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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the auth model (no login required) and concrete rate limits per session/day/bot tier, which is exactly the operational context an agent needs before spending calls. It stops short of describing latency, caching, or failure behavior for unreachable sites.

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 short sentences: what it returns, when to call it, and the quota warning last. Every sentence earns its place and the return-value list is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description enumerates return fields and covers the operational constraints (auth, quotas). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single `url` parameter is already documented in the schema (including the https:// hint), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about the URL parameter itself.

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 and resource ('웹사이트를 읽어') and enumerates the exact return payload (title, description, main content, ad goal candidates, context hints, minimum daily budget), which clearly separates it from siblings like draft_campaign or check_ad_readiness.

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?

Explicitly gives the triggering condition: '캠페인 초안을 만들기 전에 부른다', routing the agent to call this before draft_campaign. No explicit when-not or named alternative cases, but the sequencing guidance is clear.

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