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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds some signal by framing the operation as 'search and select', suggesting a stateful selection rather than a pure read. However, it does not disclose what the selection does to session state or what the tool returns, leaving important behavioral context unstated.

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 description is two short sentences with no filler, and the most important prerequisite is front-loaded in an explicit 'REQUIRES' statement. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the invocation prerequisite and the tool's purpose, but with no output schema, the agent is left uninformed about what a successful search/select returns and whether the selection persists for the subsequent detail inquiry. This is a meaningful gap for a stateful selection step.

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?

The schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds one valuable cross-call semantic: the account_link_id must match the login call, which is not stated in the schema's parameter description.

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 clearly states the action ('Search and select a worker') and the resource/context ('for COMWEL individual billed-premium inquiry'). It does not explicitly contrast this tool with the sibling 'detail' tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives a clear, essential precondition: a prior comwel__auth__npki_session__login call with the same account_link_id. It also implies placement in the workflow ('for ... inquiry'), though it does not explicitly describe when not to use this tool or name an alternative.

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