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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description still adds real value: "호출마다 토큰 1소진" discloses a per-call token cost, and the key-reuse rule explains that an omitted key makes every repeat call a brand-new request. That cost/auth-adjacent context is exactly what annotations cannot express.

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 purpose is correctly front-loaded in one short sentence, but the remaining bulk is a boilerplate idempotency block whose length is disproportionate to a two-parameter read-only status check, and the "anonymous taste calls" phrasing is opaque.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what a status check actually returns (authenticated? expired? which account_link_id it resolved?), and it never does. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering both params, the gap is narrow but real.

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 description genuinely expands request_idempotency_key semantics beyond the schema stub — create once before the first authenticated request, reuse only to recover a lost response, new key for a new execution. account_link_id is covered only by the schema, hence not a 5.

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?

"Check NPS EDI session status" names a concrete verb and resource, so the agent can tell it apart from data-retrieval siblings. It does not, however, contrast itself with nps_edi__auth__npki_session__login or the several other vendor __session__status tools, so differentiation is left 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?

Nothing says when to call this versus npki_session__login, nor what precondition (authenticated vs. expired session) it is meant to verify. The long idempotency-key paragraph is 'how to call', not 'when to call', so it does not count as usage guidance.

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