apply

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

The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it discloses that cookies are sent only to the portal, and that a 'manual' status indicates login is required. This goes beyond the minimal readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags, which are false (write operation, not destructive). It does not contradict the annotations; the 'submit' action aligns with readOnlyHint=false. The disclosure of cookie scope and login requirement is valuable for an agent assessing side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action. It then covers parameters, return values, and cookie behavior in a structured sequence. While bilingual repetition adds slight redundancy (e.g., both Korean and English for the same idea), the overall length is appropriate and each sentence adds information. No extraneous content.

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?

The description explains the return values (id, status, portal_status, page_url) and the meaning of 'manual' status, which is important for interpreting results. It also mentions the login requirement and cookie scope. Given the tool's complexity (a submission action with session reliance), this is fairly complete. However, it does not cover edge cases like invalid session or rate limits, but these are not essential for basic invocation. The presence of an output schema (not shown) further reduces the need to detail return formats.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden for parameter explanation. It explicitly defines 'ids' as dataset IDs (1~50개) and 'purpose' as intended use (활용 목적 / intended use), adding meaning beyond the raw schema fields. This is a clear compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could be more detailed about the exact format of ids (e.g., are they numeric or strings?) but the provided clarity is sufficient.

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 tool's purpose: 'Submit access applications with saved login' (활용신청을 제출합니다). It specifies the verb 'submit' and the resource 'access applications', and it is distinct from sibling tools like search, show, download, etc., none of which handle submissions. The bilingual phrasing reinforces the core action without ambiguity.

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 context about login ('로그인: datagokr login') and the meaning of 'manual' status, which hints at prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the action of submitting applications.

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