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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it is a write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it is idempotent on retry (returns existing 접수번호 instead of creating a duplicate draft). It also clarifies the output is the receipt number. This adds meaningful disclosure without contradicting annotations.

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 long, with the critical prerequisite front-loaded and the core action stated immediately. It includes the idempotency behavior and the output in a compact, efficient manner. Every sentence earns its place; there is 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?

For a tool with 17 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: the required login, the save action, the output receipt number, and idempotency. However, it does not describe the response format beyond the receipt number, nor does it mention error scenarios or side effects on existing drafts. Given the complexity, the description is adequate but could be more complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 17 parameters, so the schema already documents each field. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond noting the account_link_id must match the login call, which is a cross-parameter constraint already implied by the prerequisite. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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: 'Save 사업장정보 into a work24 subsidy draft and obtain the 접수번호'. It names the specific verb (save), resource (work24 subsidy draft), and the output (receipt number). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning idempotency, which is not typical of other save/modify tools.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'REQUIRES prior work24__auth__npki_session__login call with same account_link_id'. This tells the agent when it can be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like modify or target_save, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The context is clear but not fully differentiated.

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