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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation it discloses that this is a real write persisted at the institution, that it is irreversible through this API, and that the final submission is performed manually by the user in the institution UI. That is exactly the side-effect context an agent needs.

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?

Dense but front-loaded and mostly waste-free, leading with the auth prerequisite and the irreversibility warning. Some parameter-sourcing detail could be trimmed, but each sentence carries actionable information.

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 destructive write with no output schema, it covers prerequisites, both call modes, side effects, and the fact that a receipt number is returned, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning not in the schema: where rrkey comes from, where the health-insurance acquisition code and occupation code are obtained, and the preview/save semantics of confirm.

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: saves the 자격취득 신고서 as a draft to the 정보연계센터 and returns a receipt number. It also distinguishes it from the sibling acqs_precheck/acqs_member_lookup by clarifying that it does not transmit the report to the institution.

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 requires a prior fourinsure__session__login with the same account_link_id, instructs to call once without confirm to preview and then with confirm=true after user consent, and routes parameter sourcing to siblings: rrkey from acqs_member_lookup, codes from com_cd.list.

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