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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: per-call token consumption and detailed idempotency-key semantics, including recovery reuse and the distinction from provider-specific keys.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the total length is reasonable. Some idempotency phrasing is repetitive and the final Korean token-cost note is terse, but there is little extraneous content.

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 tool this is mostly adequate, and the idempotency and token-cost details are helpful. However, with no output schema, the description does not say what user fields are returned, and authentication prerequisites are only implied.

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 substantially expands on request_idempotency_key behavior beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on account_link_id, but the schema already fully documents that parameter.

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 and resource: retrieve logged-in user info from Hometax. The purpose is clear and distinct from sibling login tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast itself with session/login tools.

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 focuses almost entirely on idempotency-key mechanics rather than when to call this tool. It implies use after authentication and for retrieving the current user, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives such as session status tools.

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