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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by requiring a prior login with a matching account_link_id. It does not describe failure modes, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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 short sentences with no filler. The critical prerequisite is front-loaded before the action statement, and every sentence earns its place.

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 status lookup with one optional parameter, the description plus schema and annotations are nearly sufficient for correct invocation. It does not describe the exact shape or possible values of the returned status, but this is unlikely to prevent an agent from calling the tool 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?

The input schema already documents account_link_id fully, including optionality and auto-resolution. The description adds one non-obvious semantic detail: the account_link_id must be the same as the one used in the prior login, which is useful 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 the specific action ('Check electronic notice reception status') and resource, so an agent knows what the tool does. It is not a tautology and is clearly scoped to electronic notices, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like hometax__tax__notice__search_history.

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 an explicit prerequisite: a prior hometax__session__login call with the same account_link_id. This is clear invocation context, but it does not address when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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