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 covered. The description adds valuable context: the requirement of a prior login with the same account_link_id and the NTS's 5-year data limit. These are behavioral constraints beyond the annotations, making the description informative.

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 very concise—two sentences with no filler. The prerequisite is front-loaded, and the key usage constraint (date format) is stated. It is efficient but slightly sparse given the tool's complexity, though it does not waste 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and a complex domain, the description is inadequate. It does not mention what the response contains, pagination behavior, or how optional parameters affect results. It also fails to distinguish this tool from sibling refund-related tools, leaving the agent without enough context to use it correctly beyond the basics.

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%, so all 9 parameters are individually documented. The description only reiterates the date format for strt_dt/end_dt, which the schema already states. It adds no extra meaning for optional parameters like txaa_id, page_num, or account_link_id. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 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 a clear verb+resource: 'Search tax refund details.' It is specific enough to differentiate from other search tools (e.g., search_history, search_summary) by focusing on refunds, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The title '환급금 상세 조회' further clarifies the resource, so purpose is adequately conveyed.

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 only mentions a prerequisite (prior login with same account_link_id) and a date format (YYYYMMDD). It provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools like hometax__tax__unclaimed_refund__search or other search_detail tools. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative selection advice.

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