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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this and adds the useful clarification that it does not save or submit to the institution, plus the session prerequisite. It stops short of describing return shape or pagination, but adds real context beyond the annotations.

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 prerequisite is front-loaded in caps, followed by purpose and safety in three tight sentences. Slightly dense Korean phrasing but no wasted content.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers prerequisite, purpose, what the codes are used for, and the fact that nothing is persisted or submitted. Only the exact return structure is unstated, which is minor here.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the B112/D114/A101 examples. The description only restates those examples and adds the domain purpose of the codes, which is marginal added value over the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: retrieves common codes (code value and name) by classification id, for the reason/occupation fields of qualification acquisition/loss reports. No sibling in the list performs common-code lookup, so the agent can identify this tool immediately.

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 the prerequisite explicitly (prior fourinsure__session__login with the same account_link_id) and states the intended context of use (filling reason/occupation fields). It does not name an alternative tool, but no close sibling exists, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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