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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds the facts that the comparison is against official grounds and that the returned tierEvaluation is deterministic. However, it does not describe live-fetch versus seed-corpus behavior or the shape of the returned evaluation.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core comparison behavior, the second clarifies the deterministic output and separation from other decision outputs. The jargon ('tierEvaluation', 'decision/matchedRequirements') costs some clarity, but the text remains compact.

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 read-only policy-check tool with fully described parameters and strong annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and the general output, but leaves out usage conditions, output structure, and live-vs-seed behavior. No output schema exists to fill the gap.

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 the description does not need to re-document parameters. It does mention GPA, credits, admission year, and TOPIK, but adds no semantics beyond the schema; live, limit, query, and internationalStudent are only covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a concrete verb ('대조합니다') and names the resource (scholarship policy) plus the supported rule families (foreigner/TOPIK/Baekma). It distinguishes itself from 'existing decision/matchedRequirements', but those terms are not sibling tool names and are left undefined, so differentiation is only partial.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The phrase '별도로 지원되는' hints at a separate path from other decision logic, but it does not tell an agent when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_my_scholarships or evaluate_graduation_with_policy.

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