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

Adds real behavior beyond annotations: the asynchronous callback SLA (1 business day, weekdays), what the callback contains (feasibility + approximate price), and the server-side 400 rejection without consent. It does not describe rate limits or whether multiple submissions create duplicate tickets to the same number.

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?

The consent requirement is correctly front-loaded, but the entire description is effectively delivered twice (English then Korean), roughly doubling length without adding new information for an agent that already parsed the English. Size is defensible for a consent-gated write tool, but the duplication is not earning its place.

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 and full annotation coverage, the description still supplies everything an agent needs: the consent gate, the callback expectation, the failure mode, and which fields to fill for staff preparation. Nothing required to invoke 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%, so baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining consent as an explicit privacy agreement (개인정보 수집·이용 동의) and by framing what_where and size/place as optional preparation aids 'if known'. Marginal gain over schema but meaningful for the consent gate.

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 ('Submit a phone-consultation / quote request to WOOKANG TECH') plus the outcome (staff callback within 1 business day with feasibility and approximate price). This clearly separates it from siblings get_company_info and get_price_range, which are read-only lookups.

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?

Explicit preconditions: call ONLY after the user explicitly agrees to phone-number use, ask for the number if missing, never use made-up/test numbers, and set consent=true. It also names the failure mode (400 rejection without consent), which is stronger than most when-to-use guidance.

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