tlc-portal-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it mentions this is a verification step, it fails to disclose what state gets created (e.g., a draft request), whether the operation is idempotent, what validation occurs, or most critically, what the return value contains (likely a prepared request ID needed for submit_prepared_request).

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 two-sentence structure is appropriately front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and the workflow stage in the second. While extremely terse given the tool's complexity, there is no wasted language or redundancy.

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?

Given 7 parameters, multi-step workflow (prepare→submit), and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what this tool returns (critical for the agent to know how to invoke submit_prepared_request) and omits behavioral details necessary for stateful workflow coordination.

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 86% schema description coverage, the structured schema already comprehensively documents parameters including date formats, enum values, and field purposes in Korean. The description adds no specific parameter guidance, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 Korean description clearly states it prepares a vacation request and identifies it as a 'pre-submission verification step', which distinguishes it from the sibling submit_prepared_request tool. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or clarify that this tool likely returns a prepared request identifier required for the next step.

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 workflow order by stating this is the 'pre-submission' stage, suggesting it should be used before final submission. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus direct submission (if available) or prerequisites, and does not explain the two-step prepare-then-submit pattern explicitly.

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