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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only' is consistent with them. Beyond that it adds the auth prerequisite and a behavioral effect — verifying the 사전진단 verdict and returning a screen contract — which is useful session context not present in 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?

Three short sentences with the prerequisite front-loaded and zero filler; the read-only note is brief and placed last. Tight and well ordered, though 'returns the screen contract' is slightly jargon-y without an output schema to anchor it.

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 3-parameter, 100%-covered schema with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and the immediate effect of the call. The remaining gap is flow positioning relative to the sibling application steps, which an agent would have to guess.

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 is 3. The description earns an extra point by adding a cross-call constraint the schema lacks: the account_link_id must match the one used at login, which is actionable semantics rather than repetition.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Enter a work24 employer-subsidy application') and adds the effect ('Confirms the 사전진단 verdict ... returns the screen contract'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent flow siblings such as target_init, requirements, or draft_validate.

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 hard prerequisite ('REQUIRES prior work24__auth__npki_session__login call with same account_link_id'), which is genuine when-to-use context. But it gives no routing against the many sibling application tools (target_init, requirements, submit), so an agent still has to infer where this sits in the flow.

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