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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing cost side effects (휴대폰 알림 발송, 접수 과금, 인증 발송 성공 시 20P), the required user-consent gating, and the retry hazard during pending approval. Annotations only say non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world; the description supplies the operational consequences an agent actually needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the follow-up path packed into the first two sentences, then constraints. The billing note in brackets at the end is slightly tacked-on, but every sentence carries operational weight for an 18-parameter, billable mutation.

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?

No output schema, but the description compensates by naming the returns (transactionId, status) and the pending-approval state. The main remaining gap is that the 'two certificates' are never named (e.g. 소득금액증명), which matters for a bundled issuance tool.

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% with all 18 parameters documented inline, including enums and conditional requirements, so the description adds no per-parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies; nothing in the description explains field semantics 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?

States a specific verb (요청) and resource (소득 증빙서류 통합발급 본인 간편인증) and makes the scope concrete: one approval issues two bundled certificates. It also explicitly points to the sibling get_income_cert_bundle as the follow-up step, so an agent can separate the request phase from the retrieval phase without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions (사용자 확인 후 호출), explicit prohibitions (승인 대기 중 인증 요청을 반복하거나 자동 승인하지 마세요), and the exact handoff rule (승인 후 get_income_cert_bundle에 transactionId를 전달하세요). The when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions are both spelled out.

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