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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: the mandatory prior login, the exact NTS rejection message '6개월이상은 조회할 수 없습니다.', and the resulting 6-month window constraint. It does not describe pagination or rate limits, but the added context is substantial and there is no contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded: the prerequisite, action, parameter guidance, and server-side constraint are stated in a handful of purposeful sentences with no filler. The important NTS range-limit warning is placed at the end without bloating the text.

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 list-search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation, login prerequisite, date formats, direction codes, and the critical 6-month range restriction. The main gap is explicit guidance on how this tool relates to sibling invoice search tools, which is already penalized under usage_guidelines.

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 description mostly restates what the schema already says: date formats for from_date/to_date and the '01'/'02' enum meaning for prh_sls_cl_cd. It adds emphasis but no genuinely new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Search e-tax invoices by date range', and the title '전자세금계산서 목록 조회' reinforces list retrieval. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as search_detail, search_summary, or search_statistics, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear usage context: it requires a prior hometax__session__login with the same account_link_id, documents date formats, and explains the prh_sls_cl_cd direction values. It also warns about the 6-month query limit and advises splitting longer periods, but it never names alternatives or says when to prefer a sibling search tool.

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