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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that it only checks and neither saves nor submits to the institution, plus the login precondition — meaningful 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?

Three tight sentences with the prerequisite front-loaded before the purpose, and no redundant filler. Slightly repetitive bilingual phrasing but appropriately sized.

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 pre-check with annotations covering safety and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the two things that matter most: the auth prerequisite and the no-side-effect guarantee. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 in detail. The description ties up_cvrc_no to its role (the parent receipt number under which existing entries are counted) and echoes account_link_id, but adds no syntax or format beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: a pre-check that counts already-written cases under a parent receipt number before a qualification-acquisition report is filed. Clear and specific, but it never distinguishes itself by name from the parallel sibling acqs_save or from los_exist_check, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition (prior fourinsure__session__login with the same account_link_id) and the temporal context of use (before writing the report). However, it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-not condition.

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