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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false): it discloses that the call only saves and reads nothing back, that a 6-digit verification SMS is sent to the applicant's phone, that the response returns an intake number that must be confirmed via nmjib_verify_code, and that downstream quote requests arrive with 0 fee. This is exactly the operational context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then usage conditions — a logical order. It is dense with useful content, but the enumerated trade list duplicates the schema's trades description, which is the one clearly redundant passage.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return value (intake number) and the follow-up verification flow. For an 11-parameter mutation tool with an SMS handshake, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the trade vocabulary and consent terms. The description largely repeats the trades list and consent flow already present in the schema, adding little new parameter-level meaning. 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?

States a specific verb+resource: registering a construction worker (team or individual) with 내만집. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling nmjib_verify_code by naming that tool as the explicit next step, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('사용자가 스스로 등록하고 싶다/작업 받고 싶다고 할 때만') plus a required prerequisite sequence (ask name/contact/trade/region, read the privacy notice, obtain consent=true before calling). It also states the non-capability boundary — no worker search, lookup, or contact viewing — which prevents misuse against sibling lookup tools.

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