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

Annotations declare destructive and non-readonly, and the description goes well beyond them: it says the call is irreversible, that it is refused without confirm and nothing is sent, that each call consumes one token (호출마다 토큰 1소진), and that the recovery path is withdraw (반려요청), not delete.

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?

Prerequisite is front-loaded before the action, then behavioral warnings, then the alternative paths. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no filler.

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 an irreversible mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, refusal behavior, side effects (token cost), out-of-band steps (attachment upload), and post-error recovery. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds scenario-level meaning: confirm must be sent only after user consent, admin_info_sharing_consent must be chosen by the user, and account_link_id must match the login session. These constraints go beyond the schema text.

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 and resource ('Submit a work24 subsidy application to 고용노동부') and clearly separates it from siblings by naming draft_validate (pre-check), history (retry check), withdraw (undo), and delete (not the undo path).

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?

Explicit prerequisites: prior login with same account_link_id, draft_validate reporting can_submit, and confirm=true only after user agreement. It also gives when-not guidance (attachments cannot be uploaded here) and a retry path (check history first).

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