apply

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is thin. The description compensates by disclosing that cookies go only to the portal (privacy behavior), that it uses a saved session, that 'manual' means login is required, and what is returned. Missing failure/duplicate-submission behavior keeps it from a 5.

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?

Content is front-loaded and each element is useful, but the full Korean/English duplication roughly doubles the length without adding new information. Efficient in substance, wasteful in presentation.

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 mutation tool with a login prerequisite, the description covers auth, cookie scope, and outcome status semantics, and an output schema exists for return values. It lacks edge-case behavior (duplicate applications, rate limits, error handling), but is otherwise complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 carries the burden. It adds the key constraint that 'ids' accepts 1~50 dataset IDs and clarifies 'purpose' as intended use, which meaningfully supplements the bare schema. It still omits ID format/source details, so it only partly compensates.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: submitting access applications (활용신청) using a saved portal session. Distinguishes itself from siblings like login/download/search, though it never explicitly contrasts with them. Clear and 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?

States the prerequisite that a saved login is needed and points to the login tool ('로그인: login 도구 또는 datagokr login'), and the 'manual' status signals when re-authentication is required. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to sibling tools.

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