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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by explaining the historical name and reinforcing the read-only nature, plus the login dependency, which annotations don't cover. This is beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the critical login requirement, and the read-only clarification. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers purpose, preconditions, and the read-only behavior. It doesn't describe return format or pagination details, but with no output schema and self-explanatory params, that's acceptable for a search tool. Could be slightly more explicit about response structure, but overall adequate.

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%, with each parameter clearly described (e.g., inqr_cl_cd explains '01' behavior). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool searches tax amounts due by payment deadline, and explicitly clarifies that despite the 'or_pay' in its name, it never executes payments. This distinguishes it from any payment-related tools and leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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?

It specifies a required precondition: prior hometax__session__login with the same account_link_id. It also explicitly states the tool is read-only and never pays, which serves as a when-not-to-use warning. It doesn't name specific alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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