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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it specifies that an MCP-only connection code (starting with 'mcp_') must be sent via an Authorization: Bearer header, that this is NOT a login session token, and that the code is scoped to roadmap reads only rather than the whole account. It also discloses the premium-subscription and roadmap-existence prerequisites.

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 the purpose before the auth and eligibility details. Each sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information, though the auth clause is somewhat dense and could be tightened.

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-param read with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth mechanism, scope limits, and eligibility. The only mild gap is that it does not hint at what the returned 'summary' actually contains.

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 the baseline is 4. The description usefully documents the auth header that must accompany the call, which is not represented in the empty input schema.

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 (조회/retrieve) and resource (the logged-in user's own 1-3 month pass roadmap summary), with clear scope ('본인의'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling lookup_* and convert_* tools, which target exam scores, competition ratios, and job data.

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?

Gives clear eligibility context: only premium subscribers who have already created a roadmap will receive results, so an agent knows the precondition for a meaningful call. It does not, however, explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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