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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact – '호출마다 토큰 1소진' (one token consumed per call) – which is cost/rate information not in the annotations, but it otherwise repeats idempotency boilerplate rather than describing what status is returned.

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 in one clean sentence, which is good. However, the bulk of the text is idempotency-key boilerplate that reads as template text and is disproportionate for a read-only two-parameter status check, diluting the signal an agent needs.

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 full schema coverage, zero required params, and no output schema, the definition covers inputs adequately. But because no output schema exists, the description should hint at what the status result contains (authenticated or not, session expiry, account identity) – it says nothing about return values, leaving a gap for a status-query 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 a baseline of 3 would be acceptable, but the description genuinely elaborates the semantics of request_idempotency_key (generate before first request, reuse only for lost-response recovery, new key for new execution) beyond the schema's one-line pointer. It also warns that provider-specific idempotency_key is a separate field, adding useful disambiguation.

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 'Check COMWEL session status' states a specific verb and resource clearly, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling login tool (comwel__auth__npki_session__login), which keeps 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?

The description spends nearly all of its text on idempotency key mechanics, which is parameter guidance rather than when-to-use guidance. It never says when to call this status check versus the login tool, nor any prerequisite (e.g., 'call before authenticated requests to verify login').

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