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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the tool persists without readback, sends a 6-digit SMS to the responsible person's phone, returns a receipt number, and must be completed via nmjib_verify_code. It also sets expectations by stating it will not reveal pricing/margin/terms — exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs for this stateful, consent-gated flow.

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 four sentences are dense and each earns its place: purpose, storage behavior, side-effect/verification flow, consent requirement, and a limitation. It is slightly longer than the leanest possible definition, but there is no filler or repetition.

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 9-parameter, 6-required intake tool with no output schema, the description covers the full workflow: what fields to ask for, when consent is required, what happens on call (SMS + receipt number), how to complete via nmjib_verify_code, and what the tool will not disclose. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic value by naming the essential fields to collect (company, manager, contact, category, items) and by explaining consent conditions and the phone-number/SMS-code relationship. This is more than the schema provides without being redundant.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: '자재·가전·조명·가구 업체가 ... 입점을 문의할 때 접수한다'. It also states '저장만 하고 되읽지 않는다', which immediately separates this write/intake tool from read/search siblings.

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 explicit when/when-not conditions: use only when the user is a supplier representative and explicitly wants to register, after consent is obtained (consent=true), and it explicitly says it does not provide purchase price/margin/terms. It names the follow-up nmjib_verify_code but does not name an alternative intake tool for non-partner requests, so it stops just short of a top score.

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