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

Adds real context beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation: a per-call token cost ('호출마다 토큰 1소진'), a session dependency, and detailed idempotency-key semantics for recovering lost responses. The boilerplate is heavy and the phrase 'anonymous taste calls' reads as a garbled translation, but the behavioral disclosures are substantive.

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 login requirement is correctly front-loaded, but a long block of generic idempotency boilerplate consumes most of the text for a simple status check, and the confusing 'anonymous taste calls' phrase costs clarity. It is appropriately short for its core purpose but padded.

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?

Covers session requirement, idempotency, and token cost, which is most of what an agent needs to call it safely. But there is no output schema, and the description says nothing about what 'reception status' returns (e.g. possible status values), so a key part of a status-check tool's behavior is left unspecified.

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 account_link_id is already documented. The schema's request_idempotency_key field explicitly defers to the description, and the description does the work: when to generate a key, when to reuse it (same args, lost response), and when to use a new one, adding meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check electronic notice reception status.' An agent can tell it apart from mutation siblings, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly-scoped 'hometax__tax__notice__search_history' sibling, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

Front-loads a hard precondition ('REQUIRES prior hometax__session__login call with same account_link_id'), which is genuine usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives like notice__search_history, so the guidance is a precondition rather than a when/when-not rule.

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