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

Goes well past the readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=true annotations by explaining that this is a real persistent write at the institution, that it cannot be undone via the API, and that no transmission to the institution occurs until the user acts manually. The confirm-gating behavior is fully disclosed.

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 every sentence carries load-bearing information (prerequisite, effect, irreversibility, non-transmission, confirm workflow, parameter provenance). Slight structural penalty because it leads with the prerequisite gate rather than the purpose statement, delaying what the tool actually does.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent the return value (a receipt number), the auth prerequisite, the irreversibility, and the required two-step consent flow. Nothing an agent needs to call this write 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 the schema carries the field definitions and the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that rrkey must come from the qualification-loss member lookup result and elaborates the confirm=true gating contract beyond the terse schema note.

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 (qualification-loss report saved as a draft) and names the outcome (receipt number). It clearly distinguishes itself from the read-only siblings los_member_lookup and los_exist_check, and from acqs_save by the '자격상실' scope.

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 prerequisite (prior fourinsure__session__login with the same account_link_id), the two-step call pattern (call without confirm=true to preview and get user consent, then call again with confirm=true), and the exclusion that final submission happens manually in the center's UI rather than through this tool.

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