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

The description claims 'Read-only' while annotations set readOnlyHint to false, a direct contradiction. Per the rules, this warrants a score of 1. The description does disclose the return of a form contract, but the contradiction is a severe transparency failure.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the most critical prerequisite (REQUIRES prior login), then states the purpose and dependency. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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?

While the schema covers all parameters, the description has a major contradiction with annotations (read-only claim vs readOnlyHint false). It also lacks error conditions or post-conditions. The missing output schema is offset by the mention of returning a form contract, but the contradiction and lack of edge-case guidance make it incomplete.

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. The description adds value by specifying the provenance of receipt_no (from workplace_save) and programme_key (from subsidy_pack diagnosis), which are not in the schema. This enhances understanding beyond the field descriptions.

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 action: 'Enter the 대상자정보 step of an existing work24 subsidy draft and return its form contract.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other application tools like target_save or target_search. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the purpose is 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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: it requires a prior login with the same account_link_id and a receipt number from workplace_save. This establishes a dependency chain but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it. That fits 'clear context, no exclusions.'

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