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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the per-call token cost, that each request creates an XBOSS job whose result is stored, and explicitly that the call is not purely read-only despite being a "list" operation — which explains the readOnlyHint=false annotation. Gaps remain on pagination and on what the persisted job result looks like, and the critical caveat appears only in Korean boilerplate.

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 statement is short and sits near the front, but roughly half the text is generic idempotency boilerplate with internal redundancy ("Reuse it... only to recover" followed by "Without it, calling again remains a new request"). The language switches mid-description between English and Korean, hurting readability, and a typo ("anonymous taste calls") reduces trust.

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 should say what a notice list returns (item fields, ordering, paging behavior), and it does not — page size and total-count semantics for current_page_no are left implicit. It does cover the auth and side-effect model well, which is the harder part of this 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 search parameters (srch_opt, srch_txt, srch_inst, current_page_no) are already documented and the description adds nothing to them. It does add real meaning for request_idempotency_key — generate before the first request, reuse only to recover a lost response, new key per execution, unavailable to anonymous calls, distinct from provider-specific keys — which lifts it above the baseline.

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 sentence "List institution notices" gives a specific verb and resource, and the leading "No credential or login required" scopes it to anonymous access. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from close siblings such as notices__institutions__list_init, notices__institutions__detail, or notices__institutions__attachments.

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?

Usage context is implied by the anonymous/lack-of-login note and by the instruction to prepare request_idempotency_key for authenticated calls. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-something-else guidance, even though the sibling list contains a list_init and detail variant that an agent must choose among.

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