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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the filing is irreversible with no cancel action, a receipt number is assigned, and each call consumes a token. That matches and enriches destructiveHint=true rather than merely restating it.

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?

Front-loaded with the hard prerequisite, then intent, then irreversibility, then the confirm protocol. Dense and largely waste-free, though the confirm instruction partly overlaps what the schema already says for the confirm property.

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?

Covers the session dependency, the irreversible outcome, the return artifact (receipt number), and the consent flow — the critical knowledge for a 9-parameter destructive tool with no output schema. The only omission is disambiguating the redundant dry_run and confirm_submit flags.

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 baseline is 3; the description nonetheless adds the semantics of the confirm gate (first call previews, second files) which is the crux of the tool. It does not address dry_run/confirm_submit interplay or the optional phone/sort fields, leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit a 4대보험 certificate application'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling fourinsure__b1__certificate__apply__init that prepares the selection. It does not spell out the certificate variants, but the selection key handling implies them.

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?

Explicit prerequisites (prior fourinsure__session__login with same account_link_id), an exact two-step workflow (preview call → show user → retry with confirm=true), and a hard prohibition against self-approving. Nothing about when to use it is left to inference.

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