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

Beyond the annotations it discloses that each call consumes one token and creates an XBOSS job whose result is persisted, and clarifies that despite reading institution data it is not purely read-only — consistent with readOnlyHint=false. It also explains idempotency-key lifecycle in detail: generate before the first request, reuse only to recover a lost response with identical arguments, use a new key for a new execution, and keep provider-specific idempotency_key separate.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the login prerequisite, but the body alternates between English and Korean across several loosely connected topics (return lists, idempotency, token cost, XBOSS jobs, read-only status). Some sentences restate the same point — the non-read-only statement overlaps with the XBOSS-job statement — and phrasing like 'anonymous taste calls' is confusing.

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 only two fully documented parameters, existing annotations, and no output schema, the description covers preconditions, side effects, cost, and retry semantics well. The main gap is that it does not clearly characterize the returned structure beyond 'list names' for form fields, which an agent might need when wiring the response into a follow-up call.

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, but the description adds real semantics for request_idempotency_key that the schema does not: when to generate it, when reuse is legitimate versus a new execution, behavior when omitted, and its unavailability to anonymous/trial calls. account_link_id is only covered by the schema and the login precondition.

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 concrete action: initializing the qualification-change report and returning the option-list names for its fields (대상자, 신청구분, 내역변경, 보험별 구역, 변경부호). It also explicitly says the report is neither saved nor sent, which separates it from draft/submit siblings without naming them. The phrase '목록 이름을 받습니다' is slightly opaque about the exact payload, 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 precondition ('REQUIRES prior nhis_edi__session__login call with same account_link_id') and a negative usage rule (this tool does not save or send the report). It does not name a specific alternative tool to call for drafting or submitting, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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