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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the count semantics: totalCount equals pageInfoVO.totalCount and is never less than the number of rows in the response. It also introduces collectionMeta's complete and collectedCount fields and instructs the caller to ask for the next page when complete is false. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs given there is no output schema.

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 description is four sentences and wastes no words; the prerequisite is front-loaded before the action. The counts/collectionMeta explanation is dense but necessary, and there is no redundant or promotional language.

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 7-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the login prerequisite, required dates, and the all-important pagination/collectionMeta behavior. It does not list the response record fields, but that is a minor omission given the tool's role as a history search and the absence of an output schema.

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The description only re-states the date format and requiredness, adding no new parameter-level semantics. The valuable detail it adds is about response pagination, which is not parameter meaning.

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 description states a specific action and resource: 'Search cash receipt sales history.' The name and Korean title ('현금영수증 매출 내역 조회') reinforce that this is the sales-history variant, distinguishing it semantically from purchase history and summary tools. However, the description itself does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, so an agent must rely on the naming convention.

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?

It explicitly requires a prior hometax__session__login call with the same account_link_id, which is the first sentence and immediately orients the agent. It also explains the mandatory from_date/to_date and tells the agent to request the next page when complete is false. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over hometax__cash_receipt__sales__search_summary or the daily-issue search.

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