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

Adds context beyond the annotations: phone push is dispatched, a reception fee/20P accrues, the call is non-idempotent (don't retry while pending), and it returns transactionId and status that must be relayed to the user. All of this is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the action, then cost/interaction warnings, then the return-value handoff. Nothing is padded.

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 exists, yet the description discloses the return values (transactionId, status) and the full two-step flow into get_nps_bundle. Combined with the cost and no-retry rules, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 name/birthDate/phone/authProvider and the optional date-range and years params are already documented. The description adds only indirect meaning (that three certificates are issued, implying from/to and years scope them) without mapping params to specific outputs.

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+resource: requesting a 본인 간편인증 for 국민연금 통합조회, and clarifies the one approval yields 3 certificates in sequence. This differentiates it from the single-purpose req_nps_career_history / req_nps_deduction_cert / req_nps_join_history siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Explicit when-to-call (after user confirmation, since it sends a phone push and incurs reception billing) and explicit when-not (do not repeat during pending approval, do not auto-approve). It also routes the agent forward: pass the returned transactionId to get_nps_bundle.

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