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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false)Skip. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: a login prerequisite, the need for explicit parameters despite an existing session TIN, and the 5-year lookback scope. This is meaningful contextual information for the agent.

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 sentences, with the critical prerequisite front-loaded first. Every word adds value—no filler or redundant statements. It is concise and well-structured.

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 the read-only annotation arranged, no output schema, and the tool's straightforward purpose, the description covers all necessary call context: the login prerequisite, required parameters, and the search scope. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional detail.

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 provides full descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), setting a baseline of 3. The description adds extra semantic value by clarifying why txpr_dscm_no and txpr_nm are required (국세청 requirement) and that the session TIN cannot substitute for them—information not present in the schema itself.

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 action ('Search unclaimed tax refunds') and the resource (최근 5년간 미수령 국세환급금). It is unambiguous about the tool's function but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 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 provides explicit usage context: it requires a prior hometax__session__login call with the same account_link_id, and states that both txpr_dscm_no and txpr_nm are mandatory per 국세청, with the session TIN not substituting. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives.

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