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

The description explicitly claims 'Read-only', but the annotations declare readOnlyHint: false, indicating the tool is NOT read-only. Given the tool name includes 'init' (entering/initiating an application, which creates state), the read-only claim is directly contradicted by the structured annotation. This is a serious inconsistency that could mislead an agent into treating a state-changing call as safe.

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 sentences with the critical prerequisite front-loaded before the purpose. The text is efficient and wastes no words, though the misleading 'Read-only' sentence does undercut the overall value. Structurally it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the prerequisite login, the core purpose, and the return (screen contract), and the schema covers all params. But the false 'Read-only' claim, combined with no output schema and no explanation of the screen contract's structure or the expected follow-up workflow steps (e.g., __workplace_save, __target_save), leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call this safely.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with rich detail (example values, conditions, cross-references to subsidy_pack diagnosis). The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Enter') with a clear resource ('work24 employer-subsidy application'), and adds that it confirms the 사전진단 verdict and returns the screen contract. This distinguishes it from sibling application tools like __submit, __modify, and __delete by framing it as the entry/initiation step. It doesn't explicitly name siblings, but the 'init' purpose is clear enough against the sibling list.

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?

States an explicit, important precondition: REQUIRES prior work24__auth__npki_session__login with the same account_link_id. This gives clear context on when the tool can be invoked. However, it does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., versus __target_init or __requirements), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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