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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds far more — the write persists permanently at the institution, cannot be rolled back through this API, and does NOT complete the final transmission. It also discloses the dry-run/preview behavior and per-call token cost, which are not in any structured field.

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 hard gate (REQUIRES prior login) is front-loaded, followed by purpose, then the irreversibility warning, then the confirm workflow, then the rrkey note. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler or repetition.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond safety hints, the description covers the missing pieces an agent needs: auth precondition, return value (receipt number), reversibility, the confirm/dry-run protocol, and cost. Nothing essential to correct invocation is left unstated.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents types and formats. The description nonetheless adds real meaning by explaining what actually happens when confirm is absent (payload is previewed, not saved) and by tying rrkey to the loss member lookup output.

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 a qualification-loss report as a draft at the information linkage center and returns a receipt number. It also clearly delineates the boundary versus a final submission ('신고서를 기관에 전송하지는 않으며'), which an agent can use to distinguish this from a submit-type sibling.

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 an explicit prerequisite (prior fourinsure__session__login with the same account_link_id) and a concrete two-step workflow: call without confirm to preview, show the user, obtain consent, then call again with confirm=true. It also states where rrkey must come from, so the agent knows which sibling to call first.

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