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

The description discloses important side effects beyond what annotations carry: it sends a 6-digit SMS to the user, returns a request number, and only saves data without any read-back path. It also explains the consent handling and office chain. These details are critical for an agent to know before invoking the tool and are not captured in the annotations.

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 dense and contains no redundant words: each sentence adds a distinct piece of purpose, side effect, flow, or exclusion. It is a single paragraph, so scanning could be easier with slight formatting, but the content justify the length.

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 write-only tool with a 2-step verification process, this is complete: the description covers the purpose, the exact conditions, the SMS side effect, the completion step, and the alternative tools. Nothing needed for an agent to call it correctly is missing, even with no output schema present.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is a bit higher with valuable additions: the description tells the agent the exact fields (name, phone, region, pyeong, scope) to ask for and the consent condition, and it links the phone parameter to the SMS verification flow. This is below 5 only because the schema already carries the detailed field semantics, especially for consent and phone.

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 explicitly states a specific verb and resource: the tool '접수(registers)' a homeowner's consultation/estimate inquiry, and it distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly saying it is not a cost-calculation tool and that its completion requires 'nmjib_verify_code'. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and what it does not do.

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 selection criteria: call this tool only when the user explicitly asks for a consultation, use 'nmjib_cost_reference' for cost questions, use the app for exact prices, and complete the flow via 'nmjib_verify_code' after receiving the 6-digit SMS. This is explicit, condition with alternatives and no ambiguity.

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