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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the non-obvious two-phase dry-run/commit behavior and makes the user-consent gate a hard precondition — exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot express. It is also consistent with idempotentHint, since the confirm flow is safe to retry with identical arguments.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose in the first clause and then the protocol, with zero filler. Every sentence carries operational weight: what is submitted, what the first call returns, and the consent condition for the second call.

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 does the necessary work of stating what the first call returns (the pending submission content) and what gates the second call. The only gap is what the committed submission yields (confirmation state, expected follow-up/email), which an agent may want to report back to the user.

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 schema already carries field-level meaning and the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining the relational semantics of confirm_token and the consent boolean — that the token comes from the first call's return value and that the second call must reuse identical arguments — which the schema alone only hints at.

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 states a specific verb and resource (접수/submit an enterprise-usage inquiry) and immediately enumerates the covered sub-cases (bulk lookup, system-integration API key, data provision). No sibling tool (all get_*/list_*/skill_* read operations) does anything comparable, so an agent can distinguish this submission tool at a glance.

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?

It explicitly prescribes the call sequence: first call without confirm_token returns only a preview, that preview must be shown to the user verbatim, consent (including privacy consent) must be obtained, and only then may the same arguments plus confirm_token be sent. Both the when and the when-not (do not call with confirm_token before consent) are spelled out.

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