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

Even with annotations present, the description adds substantial behavioral context: success confirms the receipt and only then delivers it to the 담당자, wrong codes report remaining attempts, codes expire after 10 minutes, resend is limited to 3 times with 1-minute intervals, and the response contains only status and next step. This goes well beyond the structured metadata.

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 but front-loaded with the primary purpose, then efficiently covers success, failure, expiry, resend, and return-value restrictions. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of annotation details.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the lifecycle: prerequisites, success behavior, error handling, expiry, resend limits, and the restricted return payload. It gives an agent enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret the outcome.

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 100% and the schema already documents the 6-digit code, resend flag, and ticket pattern with an example. The description reinforces the real-world flow (e.g., omit code when resend=true), but does not need to compensate for any schema gap, so the baseline score of 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 names a specific action: verifying the 6-digit code received by SMS to complete identity verification after receipt step 1, and explicitly references the predecessor tools (nmjib_worker_apply, nmjib_consult_request, nmjib_partner_inquiry). The title '접수 2단계' and the tool name together make its role distinct from 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 clearly states when to call the tool: after a step-1 receipt, when the user has a code, and when resend is needed due to expiry or missing SMS. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, but the sequencing against the listed step-1 tools is clear enough.

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