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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true but say nothing about side effects. The description adds the real behavioral facts: an SMS/phone notification is dispatched, a per-call charge of 20 points applies, the call returns transactionId and status, and the flow must block on manual phone approval. These are materially beyond the structured annotations.

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 purpose, then the cost/confirmation precondition, the return contract, the handoff instruction, and the guardrails, ending with the point cost. Every sentence carries a distinct operational fact with no padding.

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 documents the return values (transactionId, status) and the downstream step, and covers the cost, precondition, and anti-patterns for this two-phase authenticated lookup. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%: all six parameters (name, birthDate, phone, authProvider enum, from/to) are documented in the schema itself. The description mentions the transactionId/status output but adds no per-parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (인증 요청 / request authentication) and resource (국민연금 경력 이력 / National Pension career history), and its two-step relationship to the sibling get_nps_career_history is explicit. An agent can tell immediately this is the auth-request step, not the data-fetch 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?

Gives explicit when-to-call guidance (after user confirmation, because of notification/billing), the required follow-up (pass transactionId to get_nps_career_history after phone approval), and explicit prohibitions (do not repeat while approval is pending, do not auto-approve). This is exactly the routing and sequencing an agent needs.

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