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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true/destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this ('확인만 하며 기관에 저장하거나 제출하지 않습니다'). Crucially it adds the auth prerequisite (prior session login with matching account_link_id) that annotations cannot express, which is genuine added context.

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-loads the hard prerequisite, then purpose, then the parameter hint and no-write behavior in a compact sequence. Slightly dense with mixed-language phrasing but no wasted sentences.

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 prerequisite, purpose, parameter source, and side-effect profile for an 8-parameter read-only check. What the check returns (e.g., boolean vs. detail) is not described, but with no output schema that gap is minor.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters including rrkey provenance and flag values. The description's note that rrkey comes from the loss-member lookup largely repeats the schema, so 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 (check for an existing loss declaration) and resource (loss declaration for one of the four insurances), and situates it in the workflow ('before writing the declaration'). An agent can distinguish it from los_save and acqs_precheck without opening a schema.

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 prerequisite ('REQUIRES prior fourinsure__session__login call with same account_link_id') and clear temporal context (call before writing the loss declaration). It does not name a sibling alternative or a when-not condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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