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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations do not carry — that calling it does not consume the '맛보기' (trial/preview) quota — which is genuinely useful for an agent budgeting calls. It does not describe the shape of the returned list, keeping it below 5.

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, front-loaded with the identity of the resource, then the ordering constraint, then the quota note. No filler or repetition 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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers what it is, when to call it, and a behavioral quirk. The one gap is that it never says what the list entries contain (names, descriptions, identifiers), and there is no output schema to compensate — an agent must call it blind to learn the return shape.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No param-level claims are made, but none are needed.

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 identifies a concrete resource — the list of procedures (skills) available on this server — which is clearly distinct from the sibling skill_get that presumably fetches a single procedure. The verb is nominal ('목록입니다') rather than an explicit 'list', and the description never names skill_get as the contrast, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

'수치를 인용하기 전에 먼저 부르십시오' gives an explicit precondition for calling the tool, which is real routing guidance. However it offers no when-not condition and does not point to the sibling skill_get for follow-up detail, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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