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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds two genuinely non-obvious traits: anonymous access is possible, and every call consumes one token ('호출마다 토큰 1소진'). The idempotency paragraph explains retry and key-reuse semantics, though it is heavier than a read-only list warrants.

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 and the no-login constraint are front-loaded, which is good. But the middle of the description is a dense idempotency treatise with multiple restatements ('Without it, calling again remains a new request', provider-specific key distinction) that outweigh the payload for a zero-required-parameter list call.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what a notice list entry looks like or how paging works given the current_page_no parameter. It never does, leaving the agent to infer the return shape and pagination behavior from the parameter names alone.

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 srch_opt, srch_txt, srch_inst, and current_page_no are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning only for request_idempotency_key (generate before first call, reuse only to recover a lost response, not available to anonymous calls), which is real value but limited to one of five parameters.

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 single sentence 'List institution notices' gives a specific verb and resource, and the tool name scopes it to the institution notice category. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as institutions__detail, institutions__attachments, or institutions__list_init.

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 description usefully states that no credential or login is required, which tells the agent this can be called anonymously. It gives no guidance on when to use this list versus the detail/attachments siblings, nor when an authenticated variant or list_init should be preferred.

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