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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, making the read-only nature clear. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it returns the full list of bank codes and names and mentions it is free. For a simple read-only operation, this is sufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the Korean sentence repeats the English content, and '무료' appears twice, adding minor redundancy. Still, it is concise overall.

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 read-only list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and when to use it. The annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) provide safety context, so no further details are necessary.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description confirms it returns the entire list without any filters. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4, and the description aligns with the schema (empty object).

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 it lists Korean bank codes and names, using a specific verb ('List') and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting that it provides bank_code input values for transfer_1won and account_realname.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'transfer_1won, account_realname Tool의 bank_code 입력값을 찾을 때 사용합니다.' This gives clear usage context and a concrete use case, with no competing alternatives for this purpose.

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