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

The annotations declare writability and non-idempotency but say nothing about authorization, so '[키 필요]' adds real value beyond structured fields, as does the Korean-only input restriction. It still omits mutability of posted comments and the consequence of the 24-hour prediction lock, though the schema covers the latter.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the auth flag and with the reply_to behavior given immediately after the core action. The parenthetical English gloss partially duplicates the preceding Korean clause, but it is minor and arguably aids routing.

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 mutation tool with four parameters including a nested prediction object and no output schema, the description leaves success behavior and error conditions unstated. The rich schema and annotations compensate substantially, making the definition adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 the schema already explains every parameter, and the description adds only the threading semantics of reply_to (supplying a comment number makes it a nested reply). The most complex parameter, the nested prediction object, gets no mention at all in the description.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('게시글에 댓글을 단다' – add a comment to a post) plus an English gloss, so the action is unmistakable. It does not name a sibling to contrast with, but the resource is clear enough to separate it from create_thread or like_post.

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 a prerequisite ('[키 필요]' – key required) and a hard constraint (Korean only), which is genuinely useful context. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings, how to obtain a thread_id (read_thread), or what the prediction sub-object means contextually.

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