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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: calling it does not spend the 맛보기 quota, which matters for an agent deciding whether to invoke it repeatedly during onboarding.

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?

Two short sentences: the payload is front-loaded and the quota caveat follows immediately. No filler, no restating of the title.

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 read-only informational tool with an optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the key quota behavior, which is sufficient to call it correctly. The only soft gap is that '시작 방법' (starting method) overlaps with get_signup_link without explaining the division of labor.

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 optional 'agent' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the incentive that naming the caller raises the daily limit. The description contributes nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb (돌려줍니다/returns) plus the resource: the features, limits, and starting method for each usage tier (맛보기, 무료 회원, 기업 시스템 연동). That tells an agent exactly what comes back. It does not, however, contrast itself with near neighbors such as get_signup_link or request_enterprise_contact, which also touch on onboarding and tier upgrades.

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?

There is no explicit 'call this when…' statement or named alternative. Usage is only implied by enumerating the tier names, which an agent must infer means plan/pricing questions. The caveat that it does not consume the 맛보기 quota hints at when it is safe to call, but stops short of guidance.

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