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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false, which is ambiguous for a tool that opens a screen; the description resolves that by stating it creates no consultation prep, draft, receipt, or notification, and that an already-verified connection returns phase=ready without a screen. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention any permission or auth preconditions, which keeps it from a 5.

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 usage condition is front-loaded and the alternative-tool warning closes it out, which is the right ordering. The English lead sentence largely duplicates the Korean sentence that follows, so a small amount of redundancy could be trimmed.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the whole burden and does most of it: side effects, the phase=ready return path, and the sibling to use instead. Preconditions for opening the screen (any required session or permission state) are the only notable omission.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of a returned phase=ready value is useful but is output behavior, not parameter semantics.

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 names a concrete action and resource (open the contact-verification screen for the substitute-agent number) and explicitly bounds it to an explicit user request. It also distinguishes itself from get_consultation_connection_status, which is the status-reading sibling, so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

It gives both sides of the decision: trigger phrases for when to call ("번호 확인", "다시 인증", "연결을 이어 쓰고 싶다") and an explicit when-not with the named alternative (use get_consultation_connection_status for status, do not substitute this tool). Negative routing guidance like this is rare and directly actionable.

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