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 meaningful auth context ('No credential or login required') and indicates the returned identifiers, which helps the agent understand the access model and output content beyond what annotations provide.

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 with no wasted words. The login-free prerequisite is front-loaded, followed immediately by the tool's purpose and the key returned fields.

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 no input parameters, simple read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It explains the auth requirement, the purpose, and the two identifiers returned, which are the critical details an agent needs.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain input parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the returned identifiers instead.

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 (list) and resource (KB Kookmin Bank account links registered by this caller), and it distinguishes the tool from the sibling transaction history tool by explaining that the returned IDs are what that tool needs. It also clarifies the unusual absence of a login requirement, which is not evident from the name alone.

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 makes the usage context clear: call this to obtain account_link_id and bank_account_credential_id before invoking the transaction history tool. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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