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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so those are covered. The description adds the useful unit and payment-behavior context, but does not disclose response shape, whether the balance is for the current user, or any rate-limit/auth considerations.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the operation, the second provides the essential 1P-1KRW relationship and point-payment behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only balance lookup, the description plus annotations cover most needs. It is slightly incomplete because it doesn't explicitly state whose balance is returned or what the response looks like, but the unit context and safe-read annotations make it sufficiently actionable.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are no parameters to document; its unit context is the only relevant semantic addition.

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 uses a specific verb ('조회합니다' – retrieves) and a precise resource ('포인트 잔액' – point balance). It also adds essential context (1P = 1 KRW, orders are paid with points), making the tool's role distinct from charge, order, and checkout 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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The point-payment context implies the tool is for checking balance before ordering, but it never tells the agent to prefer this over related tools like request_point_charge or get_charge_request.

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