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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds irreversibility, need for explicit caller acknowledgement, live write mode, and login prerequisites. It also explains the undo path. No contradictions with annotations; in fact, it enriches them.

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, each essential: prerequisite, action, and irreversibility. Front-loaded with the login requirement, no redundancy, and all critical information is conveyed efficiently.

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?

Covers prerequisites, irreversibility, and undo path, which is sufficient for a high-stakes mutation. However, it does not describe the expected response or what happens after submission (e.g., returns a receipt number or status), and no output schema exists. This small gap prevents a perfect score.

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% with detailed per-parameter descriptions (e.g., receipt_no from workplace_save, programme_key from subsidy_pack). The description text adds no additional param-specific semantics beyond referencing account_link_id in the login prerequisite, 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 clearly states the verb 'Submit' and the resource 'work24 subsidy application' to 고용노동부, distinguishing it from siblings like draft_validate, modify, and withdraw. It also mentions the technical mode (prssMode=SNDG), making the action specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly requires a prior login with the same account_link_id, mandates a draft_validate that reports can_submit, and clarifies that undo is via withdraw, not delete. This fully routes the agent to use this tool only after validation and provides clear conditions for use versus alternatives.

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