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

The description discloses the cost (30 points per call), which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations. It also explains the prerequisite of req_pccc and SMS verification. Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), but there is no contradiction; the 'retrieve' action is consistent with a read operation that may still incur points or state changes.

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 description is concise, with an English sentence followed by a Korean translation of the same content. This is efficient but slightly redundant. The cost note is useful and compact. Overall, every sentence earns its place, though the bilingual repetition could be tightened.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and cost. It does not explain return values or failure behavior, but given the low complexity and parameter clarity, this is acceptable and reasonably complete.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters with descriptions, but the description adds critical semantic context: auth_key comes from req_pccc's response, and answer is the 6-digit SMS code. This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions and clarifies the exact source and format.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a Korean Personal Customs Clearance Code (PCCC) using an auth key and SMS verification code. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like req_pccc (which requests the auth key) and check_pccc (which likely validates a PCCC).

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: after obtaining auth_key from req_pccc and receiving the 6-digit SMS code. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention check_pccc, but the prerequisite flow is clearly implied, so the usage scenario is well understood.

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