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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes beyond them by stating no credential/login is required and that each call costs one token (호출마다 토큰 1소진), which is real operational context. The idempotency-key recovery semantics add further value, though the phrasing about 'anonymous taste calls' is muddled.

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 purpose sentence is correctly front-loaded, but four of the five sentences are reusable idempotency boilerplate that dwarfs the actual tool-specific content. Each sentence is arguably necessary in isolation, yet the ratio makes it bloated for a simple read.

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 read-only attachment fetch with no output schema, the description never says what comes back (file metadata vs. download URLs) or how to actually retrieve the files via the download sibling. That return-shape gap is the main thing an agent still has to guess.

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%, with pst_sn and account_link_id fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only elaborates on request_idempotency_key, which the schema already flags as optional, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond what is structured.

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?

The sentence "Get institution notice attachments" names a specific verb and resource, which is enough for an agent to grasp it. It does not, however, distinguish it from sibling tools such as notices__institutions__detail, forms__attachments, or files__download, so the agent must infer the difference.

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?

The only guidance is about idempotency keys; the description never says when to use this tool instead of the notice detail or the file download tool, nor what prerequisite the pst_sn from institutions.list implies beyond what the schema already states. Nothing tells the agent when NOT to use it.

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