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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds useful context by specifying what is read: progress, pre-deduction, refund, and current deducted points, plus the '[무료]' cost signal. It does not explain status values or polling behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple read-only status query.

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 a single Korean sentence that front-loads the resource and action, then briefly lists the queried fields, with '[무료]' as a compact cost tag. There is no redundant or filler 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?

For a single-required-parameter read-only status tool, the description covers what will be returned (progress and point adjustments) and clearly identifies the domain of the input. Although there is no output schema, naming the principal return fields is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The schema already fully documents job_id with a format pattern and the label '작업 ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only the domain context that this is a bulk image job; it provides no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('조회합니다') and resource ('대량 이미지 작업'), and enumerates the exact data returned: progress status, pre-deduction, refunds, and current deducted points. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like image_batch_result, so differentiation depends on the tool name and the listed status-related fields.

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 implies the tool is used to check the progress and point accounting of an earlier bulk image job, which gives a clear context. It does not state when to prefer it over image_batch_result or image_batch_create, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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