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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: first-result billing, free re-query within validity, status checks including PARTIAL_SUCCESS, per-result paths, expiration behavior, and the need for a new authentication after expiry. These details are consistent with idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, since the tool can incur billing despite being a retrieval operation.

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 definition is dense but front-loaded: the first sentence establishes the action and source ID, then status handling, billing, result paths, and expiry follow in a logical sequence. Every sentence carries operational meaning for invoking and interpreting the tool.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the key result fields, status states, partial-success behavior, billing implications, and expiration handling. For a one-parameter retrieval tool with annotations covering safety and idempotence, this is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret it 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 100%, so the single transactionId parameter is already fully documented. The description reinforces that the ID comes from req_nps_bundle and should be reused for polling, but it does not add format or syntax details 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 verb and resource: retrieve approval status and the integrated National Pension lookup result using a transactionId from req_nps_bundle. It clearly distinguishes this integrated bundle lookup from the individual get_nps_* sibling tools by naming the bundle result fields and the parent request tool.

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 gives explicit state-based guidance: wait for phone approval when AUTH_WAITING, poll again with the same ID when COLLECTING, and submit a new request after RESULT_EXPIRED. It does not explicitly route the agent between this tool and the individual get_nps_join_history/get_nps_deduction_cert/get_nps_career_history siblings, but the transactionId context makes the intended workflow clear.

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