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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond by disclosing that the action is IRREVERSIBLE, that the artifact persists in the application results list, and that a 24-hour re-issue lockout applies per subscriber. It also reveals the auth linkage requirement and the human-approval gate — exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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 hard prerequisite is front-loaded and every sentence carries load (prereq, scope, irreversibility, rate limit, call pattern). It is somewhat dense and could be split into labeled clauses, but there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema and 6 optional params, the description supplies the missing pieces: prerequisite auth, irreversibility, 24-hour lockout, and the two-call confirm flow. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 schema already documents all six parameters, making baseline 3. The description adds real meaning by tying account_link_id to the login session and by framing confirm as the second half of a preview/approve cycle, though it largely reinforces what the schema already states.

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 specific verb+resource ('Issue the NPS membership certificate (EC02, Korean or English)') scoped to 'one subscriber', and names the prerequisite/sibling workflow. An agent can distinguish this from nps_edi__b1__certificates__membership__subscribers__search without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('REQUIRES prior nps_edi__auth__npki_session__login call with same account_link_id'), a two-step call pattern (preview first, then retry with confirm=true), and an exclusion ('Never set confirm=true on your own'). Conditions that select the behavior are spelled out rather than inferred.

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