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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as the need for the claim_token or what the approval states can be.

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 very short bilingual sentences with no waste and the core purpose front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the small scope, though the bilingual restatement is slightly redundant.

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 tool with two required parameters, one of which (application_id) is undocumented in both schema and description, and with no output schema, the definition is too thin to let an agent call it confidently without trial and error.

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 only 50% (claim_token is documented as the receipt token, application_id is not). The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented application_id.

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 (확인한다/check) and resource (신청/application approval status), so an agent understands it verifies the outcome of an application. However, it does nothing to differentiate itself from siblings like apply_for_key or claim_key, which operate on the same application/key domain.

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 the related key/application tools in the sibling list (apply_for_key, claim_key). No preconditions, no timing context (e.g., after submitting an application) are given.

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