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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Check' verb aligns with that safety profile. However, the description adds little beyond repeating the tool's name; it does not disclose whether a prior login is required, what the status payload contains, or session expiration behavior. No contradiction exists, and the annotations lower the bar, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the operation and subject efficiently; nothing needs to be trimmed.

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: one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations. The description is sufficient for the core operation, but with no output schema it does not explain what the response looks like or any prerequisites such as an existing session. This is a minor gap for a low-complexity status-check tool, so a moderate score is warranted.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema fully explains account_link_id: optional, auto-resolved from API key, when to provide it explicitly, and institution-specific IDs. Since the schema carries the entire parameter burden, the description adds no extra meaning, matching the baseline of 3.

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 'Check NPS EDI session status' uses a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('NPS EDI session status'). It explicitly names the institution (NPS EDI) and the operation (session status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like nhis_edi__session__status and hometax__session__user_info. The title in Korean confirms the same intent.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be called before NPS EDI operations, nor does it refer to the related login tool nps_edi__auth__npki_session__login. The only contextual hint is the parameter schema, which is about account_link_id, not about when to use the tool.

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