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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses several behaviors: the login prerequisite, the NTIS default period when no dates are given, and the default page size of 3 rows per page. These are value-adding and not present in the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the critical login requirement, then covers period and pagination. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is efficient.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key prerequisites (login), period behavior, and pagination. It does not describe the return format or detail all optional filters, but the schema handles those. It is sufficient for an agent to call correctly, though a bit more on output could improve completeness.

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% and each parameter has a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context for strt_dt/end_dt (narrowing period, default behavior) and page_size (default 3 rows), enriching the schema. However, it does not explain all parameters' practical implications, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 'Search overdue tax history (체납 내역)' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly identifies the tool as a search for overdue tax history, distinguishing it from sibling search tools like hometax__tax__notice__search_history and hometax__tax__refund__search_detail.

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 explicitly requires a prior login call with the same account_link_id, and explains the behavior of date filtering. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, so it misses the 'when-not' guidance.

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