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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond that: anonymous access and a per-call token cost ('호출마다 토큰 1소진'). The remaining bulk is idempotency-key policy that is largely irrelevant to a read-only list and references a 'provider-specific idempotency_key' field that does not exist in this tool's schema, which muddies rather than clarifies.

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?

Only the first two sentences serve the tool's actual purpose; the next five are templated idempotency-key policy that dominates the text. The front-loaded part is good but the remainder bloats a two-parameter read-only list tool.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and readOnly annotations, the description covers access requirements and cost, which is the essential missing context. Without an output schema it should say something about what is returned or how pagination behaves, and it says nothing about the 'page' parameter or result shape, leaving a gap.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema and baseline 3 applies. The description elaborates on request_idempotency_key but only in generic boilerplate terms and never mentions the 'page' parameter, so it adds no semantic precision beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb and resource ('List public NHIS resources/documents') and flags the public/anonymous scope, which separates it from the authenticated NHIS tools. It does not, however, distinguish 'resources' from the sibling nhis_edi__public__forms__list and nhis_edi__public__notices__list, so an agent cannot tell which public list to pick from the description 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?

'No credential or login required' implies the anonymous use case, which is the main selection signal. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over forms__list or notices__list, and no exclusions or alternative routing.

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