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

Adds behavioral facts well beyond the annotations: billing is triggered by the first successful result return, re-query within the validity window is free, and expiry is signaled with RESULT_EXPIRED. This is exactly the kind of cost/side-effect context the readOnlyHint=false annotation alone cannot convey, and nothing contradicts the 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-loads the purpose, then state handling, then billing and field guidance; every sentence carries actionable information. It is dense but not padded, though the bracketed billing restatement at the end is mildly redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the fields to inspect (resultAvailable, status, errorCode) and where the payload lives (result.healthCheckup), plus the expiry field resultExpiresAt. An agent needs nothing more to call and interpret this 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 coverage is 100% and the single transactionId parameter already documents its source and 32-char hex format, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb (조회) and resource (국가 건강검진 결과 조회 결과 / approval status) and scopes it by the req_health_checkup transactionId, which cleanly separates it from the sibling requisition tool req_health_checkup. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the 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 state-driven guidance: AUTH_WAITING means a phone approval is pending, COLLECTING means re-query with the same ID shortly, and RESULT_EXPIRED means a new authentication submission (req_health_checkup) is required. The polling/retry behavior is spelled out rather than left to inference.

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