req_cash_receipt_deduction현금영수증 소득공제 내역을 위한 본인 간편인증을 요청합니다. 휴대폰 알림 발송과 접수 과금이 발생하므로 사용자 확인 후 호출하세요. transactionId와 status를 반환하면 휴대폰 승인을 안내하고, 승인 후 get_cash_receipt_deduction에 transactionId를 전달하세요. 승인 대기 중 인증 요청을 반복하거나 자동 승인하지 마세요. [인증 발송 성공 시 20P; 조회 범위와 무관]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 본인 이름 | |
| phone | Yes | 본인 명의 휴대전화 번호 (숫자만) | |
| birthDate | Yes | 생년월일 8자리 (YYYYMMDD) | |
| incomeYears | No | 소득공제 조회 연수 (1~3, 생략 시 1) | |
| authProvider | Yes | 휴대폰에서 승인할 간편인증 방식 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, open-world). The description adds high-value behavior beyond that: an approval-flow (returns transactionId/status, requires mobile approval), a non-idempotency warning (don't repeat the request), and a cost/notification disclosure (휴대폰 알림 발송, 20P billed on successful send regardless of lookup range).
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 the cost/risk warning, then the async flow and its warnings. Every sentence carries distinct operational value with no filler.
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?
Even without an output schema, the description discloses the returned artifacts (transactionId and status), the required follow-up call, and the billing caveat, which is everything an agent needs to invoke and sequence this asynchronous authentication 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 every parameter carries its own description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no field-level syntax or constraints, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 (본인 간편인증을 요청합니다) and the exact resource (현금영수증 소득공제 내역), and is clearly the authentication-request step of a two-stage flow. It is distinguishable from the sibling get_cash_receipt_deduction, which it explicitly names as the subsequent 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-use (call after user confirmation), when-not (do not repeat requests while approval is pending, do not auto-approve), and the alternative/next step (pass transactionId to get_cash_receipt_deduction after approval). Nothing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.