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

The description states that calling the tool sends a 6-digit confirmation SMS and returns a reception number, implying a side effect on every call. This directly contradicts the annotation idempotentHint=true, which indicates that repeated identical calls should have the same effect as a single call. Sending a new SMS each time violates idempotency, so the description contradicts 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 a single, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then covers usage conditions, exclusions, and the verification flow. Each sentence adds value, though it is slightly long. It is efficient without being redundant.

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?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of the SMS verification flow, the description covers the overall workflow, including the follow-up tool and exclusions. It tells the agent when to call and what to expect, though it does not specify the reception number format or error handling, which is a minor gap.

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 schema covers all 11 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It briefly mentions required fields (name, contact, items, quantity, region) and consent, but these are already in the schema. No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: to receive inquiries for material purchase or quotes, and it differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming the follow-up tool nmjib_verify_code and mentioning it is step 1. It also distinguishes from search for magazine guidance, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 (only when the user explicitly asks for a material quote/purchase), what it does not do (does not provide prices, inventory, or product lists), and directs to alternatives (search for magazine, 담당자 회신 or app quote). It also describes the verification step with nmjib_verify_code, giving clear context for selection.

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