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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description explains why: each call creates an XBOSS job and persists the processing result, and it explicitly warns that the call is not purely read-only despite reading institution data. It also discloses a per-call cost (1 token) and that a keyless repeat call is treated as a new request – all beyond annotation coverage. The Korean sentences are dense and partially restate the readOnlyHint, which caps it below a 5.

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 prerequisite and the non-read-only warning are front-loaded, but the text mixes English and Korean and spends several sentences on idempotency mechanics that partly repeat the schema field description. Informative, yet not tight.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (missing_required_fields and field_errors) and confirms nothing is saved or submitted. Combined with auth prerequisite, cost, idempotency policy and side-effect disclosure, an agent has everything needed for a 2-parameter, zero-required tool.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by specifying lifecycle semantics for request_idempotency_key (generate before the first request, reuse only to recover a lost response, new key for a new execution, do not confuse with provider-specific idempotency_key). account_link_id is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given its documented fallback behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource – 'Validate dependent qualification declaration draft without submission' – and the schema further pins it to the form opened by dependent_init. It fails to explicitly distinguish this validate tool from the closely named siblings (acqs_draft_validate, chg_draft_validate, los_draft_validate), which is the only thing keeping it from 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?

It gives a hard prerequisite ('REQUIRES prior session login call with same account_link_id'), a precise when-to-reuse rule for the idempotency key, and a pointer to the init tool that produces the form. There is no when-not-to-use guidance relative to the other draft_validate siblings, so an agent must infer the choice from the tool name.

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