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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses an ownership precondition ('이 에이전트가 개설한 회의' — the meeting must have been created by this agent) and a downstream effect (items appear as carryover candidates in the meeting report summary). It does not mention failure modes, whether items can be removed, or any constraints beyond the schema's length limits.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is stored and where, followed by the condition for use. No filler and no 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?

Purpose, trigger, precondition, and side effect are all covered, which is decent for a two-parameter write tool with no output schema. But with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the parameter meanings and any write-related caveats are left hanging, so it is only minimally complete.

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% for two required parameters, and the description adds no meaning for either. The opaque 'room_code' (4-10 chars) in particular is left entirely unexplained, and 'text' is only implicitly the parked item. The description should have compensated here and does not.

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 names a specific verb (보관한다, 'stores') and a specific resource (the parking lot of a meeting created by this agent), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_carryover or get_meeting_report, though the parking-lot concept is distinctive enough to separate it.

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 states the triggering condition clearly: use it when an off-agenda discussion should be left as a carryover candidate for the next meeting. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, so it lands short of a 5, but the when-to-use context is concrete.

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