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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description contributes the workflow linkage (the id originates from request_check) but adds no behavioral detail such as result lifetime, polling semantics, or what states a request can be in.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the English gloss; nothing is wasted. The bilingual restatement is slightly redundant but keeps both audiences served without bloating the text.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is fetched (status and result) and where the id comes from. It does not describe the shape of the returned status/result, but annotations and simplicity keep the remaining gap small.

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 0%, so the description must carry the param meaning, and it does add the key fact that id is the value returned by request_check. That is genuinely useful provenance beyond the schema's bare pattern '^rq_[A-Za-z0-9_-]{8}$', though it gives no further format or casing guidance.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('요청 상태와 결과를 다시 봅니다' / get a verification request's status/result) and ties it to the id produced by request_check, which partially separates it from the sibling request_check. It stops short of stating what request_check itself does, so the boundary between the two is only implied.

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 implies the calling context ('request_check 가 돌려준 id로' – use the id returned by request_check), which is real usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no statement of when to re-check versus calling request_check again.

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