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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the auth requirement, the one-submission-per-question rule, immutability, and the sealing of the data state at submission time as evidence. These are meaningful behavioral traits, and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 description is short, front-loaded with the key requirement, and every Korean clause conveys useful constraints. The appended English translation is mostly redundant but not harmful, so it loses a point for slight duplication.

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 simple two-parameter submission tool, it covers the essential behavior, constraints, and auth need, and no output schema exists to explain. Gaps remain: it never points to arena_questions for question selection or apply_for_key for obtaining the key, and it omits the expected result/response of a successful submission.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate; it clarifies that probability is the upward probability and within 0~1, and that question_id refers to an official arena question. However, it does not say how to obtain a valid question_id or what happens with an invalid one, so parameter meaning is only partially fleshed out.

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 action — submit an upward probability (0~1) for an official arena question — and adds the key constraint that it is one-shot and uneditable. It is clearly distinct from siblings like arena_questions and my_arena_forecasts, though it never names an alternative.

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 guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings, nor how to obtain a valid question_id or key. The '[키 필요]' note and the one-per-question warning imply prerequisites, but the description never tells the agent to consult arena_questions for question IDs or check my_arena_forecasts before resubmitting.

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