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

Adds real value beyond annotations: the login prerequisite with a matching account_link_id and the per-call token cost ('호출마다 토큰 1소진'). However, annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description never explains what is mutated or destroyed by a 'review' — whether it locks the draft, bumps the state version, or invalidates prior edits. That omission is significant for a destructive tool.

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?

Three short sentences, with the hard requirement front-loaded in caps — no filler. Minor deduction for the untranslated Korean token-cost sentence buried at the end rather than integrated with the other operational notes.

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 5-parameter, nested-object, destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description leaves out the return shape (does review return findings, a diff, or just ok?) and the meaning of expected_state_version conflicts. The prerequisite and cost notes are useful but insufficient to call the tool confidently on retry/conflict paths.

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 100%, so the baseline applies. The description only echoes account_link_id (via 'same account_link_id') and says nothing about draft_id, expected_state_version concurrency semantics, idempotency_key, or the nested annex_document.

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?

States a specific verb ('Review') on a specific resource ('regular-withholding draft') and places it in the pipeline ('before preview/submission'), which clearly separates it from the sibling init/basic_save/detail_save/preview/submit tools. It does not say what 'review' actually does (validation? recalculation? checklist?), leaving the core operation slightly opaque.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule (call before preview/submission) and a hard prerequisite (prior hometax__session__login with the same account_link_id). No when-not guidance, e.g. whether review may be skipped or re-run, is provided.

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