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

Well beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations, it discloses the auth precondition, the per-call cost ('호출마다 토큰 1소진'), and the retry/idempotency semantics including what happens if the key is omitted ('calling again remains a new request'). That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to avoid duplicate requests.

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?

Front-loads the hard prerequisite in capitals before the purpose, which is the right ordering for a dependent tool. The idempotency explanation runs several sentences and could be tightened, but each clause carries operational meaning rather than filler.

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?

A two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safe-operation annotations needs little more; the description covers auth, idempotency, and cost. The one remaining gap is the shape of the returned business info, which matters more here because no output schema exists.

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 baseline is 3, but the opt-in request_idempotency_key explicitly defers to this description for meaning, and the description delivers the full contract: generate before first call, reuse only for recovery, new key for a new execution, and do not confuse it with provider-level idempotency_key.

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 ('Get business establishment basic info') and names the provider (NHIS), so an agent knows exactly what data it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast with lookalike siblings such as nps_edi__b1__workplace__main_basic_info, so sibling differentiation is implied only by the provider name.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: a prior nhis_edi__session__login call with the same account_link_id is REQUIRED, which tells the agent when the tool is callable. It does not state when to prefer it over other NHIS lookups, but the usage context is clear.

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