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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: business-key idempotency (a retry returns the existing 접수번호 rather than creating a duplicate draft) and per-call token cost ('호출마다 토큰 1소진'), plus an auth prerequisite. It never explains why destructiveHint=true — presumably it overwrites pre-existing 사업장정보 — so the destructive footprint remains unstated.

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?

Four compact sentences, with the hard prerequisite front-loaded and every sentence carrying distinct information (auth, action, idempotency, cost). The dense mixed Korean/English phrasing is slightly harder to parse but not padded.

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?

With 17 parameters and no output schema, the description does well to name the returned value (접수번호/cvplRqutRcno) and the idempotency behavior, and annotations already cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is workflow ordering relative to init/target_save/draft_validate, which an agent must still infer.

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% across all 17 parameters, so the schema already carries field-level meaning (e.g. business_management_no falling back to the login-stored value, applicant_zip being 5 digits). The description adds no parameter-level detail of its own, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Save 사업장정보 into a work24 subsidy draft') and the concrete outcome ('obtain the 접수번호'), which lets an agent distinguish it from read/query siblings. It does not, however, distinguish it from the closely named sibling work24__subsidy__application__target_save or from modify, so the differentiation is partial rather than explicit.

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 names one hard prerequisite (prior work24__auth__npki_session__login with the same account_link_id), which is genuinely useful. But it gives no guidance on where this sits relative to application__init, target_save, draft_validate and submit, and no when-not/exclusion guidance. Usage is implied by the workflow rather than stated.

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