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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, and the description goes beyond them with the auth prerequisite, idempotency semantics, the warning that omitting the key makes every call a new request, and a per-call cost note ('호출마다 토큰 1소진'). It does not describe what the detail payload contains, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 auth requirement and purpose are correctly front-loaded, but roughly half the text is generic idempotency boilerplate for one optional parameter on a read-only lookup, which outweighs the two sentences that describe this specific tool. The trailing token-cost note is useful but appended as an afterthought.

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?

For a read-only detail lookup with no output schema and four well-documented parameters, the description covers prerequisites and key handling adequately. However, it omits what the detail result contains and how it differs from history__list or history__detail_init, leaving the agent to guess the workflow position of this 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 description coverage is 100%, so cvrc_no, group_cvrc_no, and account_link_id are already fully documented in the schema (including the source of cvrc_no from certificate.history.list). The description adds real semantics for request_idempotency_key that the schema explicitly defers to it, but that is a single optional parameter, so it lands at the baseline-plus level rather than above it.

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 ('Get certificate application history detail'), which maps cleanly onto the tool's domain. It does not distinguish itself from the closely named siblings history__list, history__detail_init, or history__pdf_download, so an agent still has to infer the boundary from the names.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('REQUIRES prior fourinsure__session__login call with same account_link_id') and clear when-to-reuse guidance for the idempotency key ('reuse it with the same arguments only to recover that request after a lost response; use a new key for a new execution'). It never says when not to use this tool versus history__list or whether history__detail_init must run first.

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