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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing the irreversibility window (same-day cancellation only) and that the NTS ledger and recipient records update immediately. It also notes a per-call token cost. This is rich context beyond annotations, though the exact consequence on a failed/partial call is not spelled out.

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?

Front-loaded with the REQUIRES prerequisite, then purpose, then irreversibility, then the confirm workflow. Dense but every sentence carries actionable information, including the token-cost note.

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 9-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it safely: auth requirement, purpose distinction, two-step confirm protocol, irreversibility/cancellation window, and cost.

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%, so all nine parameters (including code enums and the confirm workflow) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the confirm semantics but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (issue) and resource (a single cash receipt), and names the two distinct purposes (소득공제용 income deduction, 지출증빙용 expense proof). An agent can distinguish this from sibling receipt tools like daily_issue__modify/cancel without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the explicit prerequisite (prior hometax__session__login with same account_link_id) and a precise two-step flow: call without confirm for a preview, show it to the user, then retry with confirm=true. It also states an explicit prohibition (never set confirm=true on your own), leaving nothing to inference.

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