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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds the genuinely useful specifics — the application is filed with 정보연계센터, a receipt number is assigned, and it cannot be cancelled. It falls short of 5 because it never reconciles the confirmation_token protocol with the dry_run and confirm_submit parameters, which could lead an agent to believe a bare dry_run=true call is the same as the preview step.

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 first four sentences are well front-loaded and high value. However, the trailing Korean sentences about XBOSS 작업 생성, 토큰 1소진, and 기관 원본 조회 are generic boilerplate unrelated to this tool's specific behavior and dilute the actionable content.

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 destructive 9-parameter write with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, the return preview, the confirmation token lifecycle, and the absence of a cancel path — nearly everything an agent needs. The remaining gap is that the three overlapping submission controls (dry_run, confirm_submit, confirmation_token) are described individually only in the schema, leaving their interplay ambiguous.

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%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters including token expiry. The description adds only one piece of meaning beyond that — that changing any argument invalidates the token — and says nothing about how selection values map to certificate types or how confirm_submit differs from the token, both of which are the most error-prone inputs.

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 and resource — 'Submit a 4대보험 certificate application' — and immediately flags that this is the filing step rather than a preparation step. It is clearly distinguishable from the *_init / *_apply__init siblings by the word 'submit' plus the irreversibility note, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite ('REQUIRES prior fourinsure__session__login call with same account_link_id') and lays out the exact two-call protocol: first call returns a preview and confirmation_token, second call repeats the same arguments plus the token, never add the token without user agreement, and changing any argument invalidates the token. It also states there is no cancel action.

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