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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the success side effect (receipt is confirmed and delivered to the 담당자), the failure behavior (remaining attempts), the 10-minute expiry and resend limitations, and the minimal response scope. None of this contradicts the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only); it enriches them.

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?

Four compact sentences front-load the verification purpose and then pack side effects, error handling, resend rules, and response scope into the remaining sentences. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no filler.

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 small, flat tool with no output schema, the description covers the complete call flow: when it applies, what input is needed, what happens on success/wrong/expired/missing codes, and what the response will and will not contain. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, including the code being omitted when resend=true and the ticket pattern. The description adds the missing SMS and expiry conditions that trigger resend, but much of the parameter-level detail is already in the schema, so it only modestly exceeds the baseline.

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 a 6-digit code after stage 1 to complete identity confirmation, and explicitly lists the four stage-1 siblings that precede it. This makes the tool's role and position in the process unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from the other nmjib_* tools.

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 states when to call (after the listed stage-1 tools), how to handle wrong codes (remaining attempts), how to handle expiry (resend=true), and how to handle a missing SMS (call with resend=true). It also gives the 3-call and 1-minute limits, so an agent can decide between verify and resend without guessing.

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