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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true/destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavior beyond them: the session prerequisite, the retry/recovery semantics of the idempotency key ('calling again remains a new request'), and the per-call token cost ('호출마다 토큰 1소진'). That is substantive value, though the caveat about anonymous taste calls is confusing and the return shape is unstated.

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 prerequisite is correctly front-loaded, but the idempotency paragraph is long and partly duplicates the schema's 'see the tool description' pointer, and the trailing Korean token note is disconnected from the rest. Information is useful but not tightly compressed.

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, zero-required-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the critical operational facts (login dependency, idempotency, cost). It stops short of saying what client fields are returned or how it differs from business_info__get.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description actually carries the meaning of request_idempotency_key (generate, save, reuse only for recovery of the same request, new key for new execution) that the schema defers to it for. account_link_id is only gestured at via the login prerequisite.

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+resource: 'Get client/counterparty info for e-tax invoicing.' An agent can tell it is a read of counterparty master data, but the description never distinguishes it from the nearby sibling hometax__etax__business_info__get, which an agent could easily pick instead.

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?

Explicitly gives the prerequisite ('REQUIRES prior hometax__session__login call with same account_link_id') and lays out the idempotency-key workflow in detail. It does not say when to prefer this over business_info__get or tax__trade_partner__search_list, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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