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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a behavioral requirement (prior login with same account_link_id) and specifies the purpose, which helps the agent understand the operational context. It does not describe the return format or any other behavioral nuances, but given the annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The critical prerequisite is front-loaded, followed by a concise statement of the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple read-only operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the prerequisite and the purpose. It does not explain what the returned business info contains, but the tool name and purpose give a reasonable expectation. The lack of sibling differentiation is a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the parameter description in the schema is thorough (explains optionality, auto-resolution, multiple certificates, and cross-institution uniqueness). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full burden.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'business info' with a purpose ('for e-tax invoice purposes'). It is specific enough to indicate what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling 'hometax__etax__client_info__get', which could be a similar lookup. The resource and purpose are unambiguous, but sibling differentiation is missing.

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 provides a clear prerequisite (prior hometax__session__login with the same account_link_id), which is valuable guidance for when the tool can be used. However, it does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with similar tools.

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