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 the session prerequisite and the fact that it searches 'rows', but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, or whether the search is a one-shot call versus a multi-step flow. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 no waste. The prerequisite is front-loaded, which is the most important operational fact. It could be slightly more structured, but it is appropriately concise.

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?

For a search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It covers the prerequisite and the basic action, but it does not explain the relationship to the init/page/result siblings, pagination semantics, or what 'rows' means in terms of return shape. Given the tool's moderate complexity, a 3 is fair.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb ('Search') and resource ('KB Biz Card payments rows'), and the title confirms the domain (KB국민카드 결제내역 검색). It is clear what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like kb_biz_card__payments__init/page/result or kb_biz_card__purchases__search, so it loses a point on sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: 'REQUIRES prior kb_biz_card__session__login call with same account_link_id.' This is valuable usage guidance. However, it does not explain when to use this search versus the init/page/result flow or the purchases search, so the guidance is incomplete.

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