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

Annotations already cover read-only safety, but the description adds real behavioral context: no login required, per-call token consumption ('호출마다 토큰 1소진'), and idempotency-key semantics including the rule that reuse only recovers a lost response. The idempotency paragraph is somewhat boilerplate for a read-only detail call, but the auth and cost disclosures are genuinely useful.

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?

Purpose and auth status are front-loaded, which is good. However, the long idempotency-key paragraph is repetitive and disproportionate for a read-only detail endpoint, and the trailing Korean token note reads as an afterthought.

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 single-record tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the definition covers auth, cost, and idempotency adequately. It doesn't describe what the notice detail returns (body, fields), but with no output schema and a clear 'detail' name that gap is minor.

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 pst_sn and account_link_id are fully documented in the schema. The description earns extra credit by carrying the semantics for request_idempotency_key, which the schema explicitly defers to ('see the tool description'), explaining when to reuse vs. create a new key.

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 institution notice detail'), which is clearly a single-record fetch. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like notices__institutions__list or __attachments, so an agent must infer the list-vs-detail vs attachments split from the names alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when NOT to use it, and no routing to the list or attachments siblings. The only contextual hint is 'No credential or login required', which is about auth rather than tool selection.

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