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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is free to add what they cannot: the session-prerequisite, the per-call token cost ('호출마다 토큰 1소진'), and the exact retry/idempotency semantics. The idempotency explanation is genuinely useful behavior an agent could not get from the schema alone.

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 prerequisite is correctly front-loaded, but a large share of the text is generic boilerplate (anonymous taste calls, provider-specific idempotency_key) that is not obviously relevant to this read-only FAQ lookup and dilutes the core instruction.

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?

Auth, cost, and idempotency are covered, and there is no output schema so return-value detail is not strictly owed. Still, for a 'detail' endpoint it says nothing about what the FAQ detail payload contains or how errors (e.g., unknown qstn_sn) behave.

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 for qstn_sn, account_link_id and current_page_no. The description earns the bump by documenting request_idempotency_key semantics that the schema defers to it ('see the tool description'): when to reuse vs. generate a new key, and that a provider-specific idempotency_key is a separate field.

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: 'Get FAQ detail', which distinguishes it from the sibling faqs__list at a glance. It does not spell out what the detail contains, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 names the prerequisite (prior fourinsure__session__login with the same account_link_id) and the idempotency-key protocol. However, it never says when to pick this over faqs__list or faqs__list_init, leaving that inference to the naming convention.

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