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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that each call consumes one token, that a server-side XBOSS task is created and the result persisted, and explicitly that the call is not purely read-only — consistent with readOnlyHint=false. It does not cover auth prerequisites or whether the side effect is visible to other callers, and the untranslated "XBOSS 작업" term leaves some ambiguity.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense bilingual block where the same point ("Without it, calling again remains a new request") is restated after already being established. Mixing English and Korean mid-paragraph makes the behavioral disclosures harder to scan.

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?

With two optional parameters and no output schema, the description should indicate what the returned status conveys (e.g., authenticated vs. expired), which it never does. It compensates well on cost and side effects, so the definition is callable but leaves the agent unsure how to interpret the result.

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 account_link_id is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does add real meaning for request_idempotency_key — reuse versus regenerate semantics and the warning not to confuse it with a provider-specific idempotency_key — but that is the only parameter elaborated.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Check COMWEL session status"), and the provider prefix in the name disambiguates it from the nps_edi/work24/nhis_edi session-status siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state the scope of the returned status, so it stops short of a 5.

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 strong when-to-use guidance for the idempotency key (generate before the first authenticated request, reuse only to recover a lost response, new key for a new execution) and notes the key is unavailable to anonymous calls. However, it never says when to call this status check versus a sibling login tool or what precondition it satisfies, so the tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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