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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: an authentication prerequisite tied to account_link_id, same-request idempotency recovery semantics, a warning not to confuse it with provider-specific idempotency keys, and a per-call token cost.

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 prerequisite and purpose are front-loaded, which is good, but the middle is heavy generic idempotency boilerplate, and the trailing Korean token-cost line feels tacked on. Nothing is strictly wasted, yet the idempotency block could be tighter.

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 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers prerequisite, idempotency handling, and cost, leaving little an agent needs to call it correctly. It is only missing sibling-level disambiguation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value: the schema's request_idempotency_key entry explicitly defers to the tool description, which then explains when to generate, reuse, or replace the key and warns it differs from provider idempotency keys.

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?

'Get EDI electronic notice contract info' states a specific verb and resource, which is enough to identify the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like edi_electronic_notices__search_options or premium_notices__search, so the boundary remains implicit.

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 gives a strong prerequisite ('REQUIRES prior nhis_edi__session__login call with same account_link_id') and detailed idempotency-key usage rules. It never says when to prefer this tool over the notice-search or search-options siblings, so task-level routing is left to inference.

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