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

Annotations mark it non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description adds concrete behavioral facts beyond them: a phone push notification is sent, a per-call charge of 20 points applies, and transactionId plus status are returned. It does not cover edge cases like auth failure or expiry, so a small gap remains.

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 caveat, the return values, and the flow into get_employment, with no filler sentences. It is dense but every clause carries actionable information, so it stays readable despite the packing.

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 an async, side-effecting authentication request with no output schema, the description supplies the return values (transactionId, status), the user-confirmation prerequisite, the cost, the anti-repeat rule, and the downstream tool, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 all five parameters (name, phone, birthDate, authProvider, insuranceYears) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as format or default behavior, 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 (요청) and resource (재직·보험료 확인 본인 간편인증) and clearly distinguishes this initiation step from the sibling get_employment, which it names as the follow-up retrieval call. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does 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 when-to-use (after user confirmation, since notification/cost occur), the required follow-up (pass transactionId to get_employment after phone approval), and explicit when-not-to (do not repeat requests while approval is pending, do not auto-approve). This is a full routing instruction with exclusions.

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