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

The description discloses side effects and behavior beyond annotations: it states '저장만 하고 아무 데이터도 되읽지 않는다' (only writes, no reads), that a 6-digit SMS is sent to the applicant's phone, and that the response contains a receipt number. It also clarifies the registration is not complete until verification via nmjib_verify_code. These details are not captured by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and add valuable context without contradicting 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?

The description is relatively long but each sentence contributes: purpose, side effect (SMS), return value, usage condition, workflow steps, trade list, post-registration outcome, and exclusions. It is front-loaded with the core action and side effect. While slightly dense, the complexity of the tool (multi-step flow, 11 parameters) warrants the length, and it avoids fluff.

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 the tool has 11 parameters, 5 required, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the action, side effects (SMS), return value (접수번호), the required user-facing steps (asking for info and obtaining consent), the follow-up tool (nmjib_verify_code), post-registration behavior (offers via SMS/알림톡), and exclusions (no search/조회). An agent can call it correctly with this information alone.

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 input schema already describes all parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by prescribing the workflow: which parameters to ask first ('먼저 이름·연락처·공정·지역을 물어보고') and emphasizing the consent requirement with privacy details (also in schema). It repeats the trade list, which is redundant, but the sequencing and consent emphasis go beyond schema, justifying a 4.

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 verb and resource: '시공 작업자(팀·개인)가 내만집에 등록을 신청한다' – clearly stating it registers construction workers. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly stating it has no search/조회/연락처 열람 features and by referencing nmjib_verify_code as the follow-up step, so an agent can distinguish it from related 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?

The description gives explicit usage conditions: '사용자가 스스로 "내만집에 작업자로 등록하고 싶다/작업 받고 싶다"고 할 때만 쓴다' and instructs to first ask for name, contact, trade, and region, then read privacy info and obtain consent before calling. It also names the next tool (nmjib_verify_code) and explains the verification flow, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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