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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the content of the output (evidence, fix, re-verification, official link), which substitutes somewhat for a missing output schema, but it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

A single, tight sentence that front-loads the action and lists the payload contents without any waste. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 low-complexity, two-required-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the result contains but omits parameter meaning, prerequisites, and any failure modes. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the two undocumented parameters. It only implicitly references a 'scan' and 'one item', giving no meaning, format, or constraint details for scanId (a UUID) or itemId (pattern like SEC-001).

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 (설명합니다/explains) and resource (검사에서 나온 항목 하나/one item from a scan), and enumerates what is explained: observation basis, fix method, re-verification method, and reference links. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools (get_scan, start_scan), but the scope is clear enough to distinguish implicitly.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The presence of scanId and itemId implies this is used after a scan exists, but no prerequisite or sequencing information (e.g., that a completed scan is required) is stated.

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