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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that the specific thing being verified is approval status; it says nothing about what happens with an invalid or expired claim_token, whether errors reveal application existence, or what states can come back.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the Korean sentence and its English translation convey identical information, doubling length without adding content. No wasted elaboration beyond that 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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place to explain what a successful check returns (approved/pending/rejected) and how the caller should react to each state, and it does none of that. For a status-lookup tool whose whole value is the returned state, this leaves a real gap despite the annotations covering safety.

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%, and both parameters carry their own descriptive text (claim token prefix 'tpc_…', application_id tied to apply_for_key responses). The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema is fully documented.

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 and resource ('신청이 승인됐는지 확인한다' – check whether an application was approved), which is more precise than a bare 'check_application'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the related apply_for_key or claim_key siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 on when to use this versus applying for a key or claiming a key, and no note that it requires the claim token issued at application time. The caller must infer the workflow order entirely from the schema.

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