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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, yet the description adds genuinely new context: no login needed, per-call token cost ('호출마다 토큰 1소진'), and the idempotency key recovery semantics for authenticated calls. The idempotency explanation is dense and the phrase 'anonymous taste calls' is unclear, slightly muddying the disclosure.

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?

Purpose and output fields are front-loaded well, but the bulk of the text is a generic idempotency-key block that dominates a simple one-parameter read tool. Lines like 'Without it, calling again remains a new request' restate the same point already made.

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?

No output schema, but the description names the returned identifiers and the downstream consumer, and the sole optional parameter is covered. For a read-only list tool this is largely complete, with only the anonymous-vs-authenticated flow left slightly ambiguous.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single parameter is already documented and the schema defers to the tool description. The description adds real meaning (reuse only to recover a lost response, new key for a new execution, not available to anonymous calls, distinct from provider idempotency_key), but that is baseline-plus rather than a full explanation of when the parameter is required.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list the KB Kookmin Bank account links this caller registered) and names the exact fields returned (account_link_id, bank_account_credential_id). It also explicitly positions the output as input to the transaction history tool, which distinguishes it from sibling session/login and other bank's account-list tools.

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?

Clear situational context: no credential or login required, call this before the transaction history tool. It states the prerequisite relationship to a sibling but does not explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g., when already authenticated vs anonymous), leaving a small gap.

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