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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and 'Check' is consistent with that. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotation, such as whether an active session is required, how failures are reported, or what state is returned.

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?

One sentence that immediately states the action and target. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant schema content.

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?

The tool is simple and has no required parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., active/inactive, expiration, message). For a status check this minimal description is usable, but return semantics are left unspecified.

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?

The single parameter is already fully documented in the schema: UUID format, optionality, auto-resolution from API key, multi-certificate usage, and per-institution distinction. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('NHIS EDI session status'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like nhis_edi__session__login and hometax session tools. It is concise and unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus logging in or versus other session-status tools. The account_link_id note covers only parameter selection, not tool selection, so the agent must infer the usage context from the name alone.

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