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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, but the description adds genuine context: the prior session__login requirement with matching account_link_id, and the explicit no-persistence/no-submit guarantee. It also previews the returned fields, going 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?

Front-loads the hard prerequisite, then the purpose and return contents, with no filler. Bilingual mixing is slightly less scannable but each sentence carries weight.

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?

No output schema, but the description compensates by summarizing return values (rrkey, acquisition/loss dates per insurance, existing-report status) and the auth precondition. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 documents all 7 parameters; the description only reiterates that name and RRN are the lookup keys and adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (lookup a qualification-loss member by name and RRN) and clarifies it is read-only versus the save/submit flow. It does not name its closest siblings (acqs_member_lookup, los_exist_check), so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 explicit workflow context ('자격상실 신고서를 쓰기 전에') and the prerequisite login call, and excludes the write path ('저장하거나 제출하지 않습니다'). No alternatives are named by name, so no exclusions/alternative routing beyond the read/write split.

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