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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: an auth prerequisite, per-call token consumption ("호출마다 토큰 1소진"), and detailed idempotency semantics including that reusing the key with the same arguments is only for lost-response recovery. The one weak sentence is the garbled "not available to anonymous taste calls," which adds noise rather than clarity.

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 prerequisite is correctly front-loaded, but the middle is a dense idempotency paragraph that restates the same idea three ways (reuse for recovery / new key for new execution / without it calling again is a new request). The trailing Korean token-cost note is buried at the end where it is easy to miss.

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?

Auth, idempotency, and cost are all covered, which is strong for a read-only lookup. However, there is no output schema, and the description never indicates what workplace attributes come back, so an agent cannot anticipate the response shape before spending a token.

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 would be 3, but the schema explicitly defers to the description for request_idempotency_key ("see the tool description"), and the description carries that load by explaining when to reuse versus regenerate the key. It also clarifies the key is distinct from any provider-specific idempotency_key, which prevents a real misuse.

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 and resource ("Get workplace main basic info from NPS"), which tells an agent exactly what is retrieved and from which system. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the NHIS analogue (nhis_edi__business__basic_info), but never names siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the provider prefix rather than stated.

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?

"REQUIRES prior nps_edi__auth__npki_session__login call with same account_link_id" gives a concrete precondition and names the exact prerequisite tool, which is the most important usage constraint for this family. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over related NPS lookups (e.g. workplace_subscribers__status or premium_notices__search), so exclusions are absent.

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