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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the login dependency and scopes the call to a single account. It does not disclose pagination or response characteristics, but with annotations covering the main behavioral safety signals, this level of additional context is adequate.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The critical prerequisite is front-loaded at the very beginning, followed by a concise statement of purpose. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential precondition and scope but does not mention return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The schema and annotations carry most of the operational context, so the description is minimally viable but not rich enough to fully orient an agent encountering this tool for the first time.

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?

Input schema coverage is 89%, so most parameters are already described. The description adds value by tying account_link_id to the required prior login call ('same account_link_id'), which clarifies the relationship between the login and this search. No other parameter semantics are enriched beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a precise resource ('Shinhan easy-inquiry transaction history'), and a scope ('one account'). The full tool name and title reinforce the bank and operation, distinguishing it from siblings like kb_fast_account__accounts__transaction_history__search by provider and scope.

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?

The description explicitly declares the prerequisite: a prior shinhan_easy__auth__id_password_session__login call with the same account_link_id. This is an unambiguous conditional for correct invocation. It does not name alternative tools, but the precondition is the most critical usage guidance for this operation.

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