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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by detailing operational behaviors: requiring a prior session, creating XBOSS workflows, clarifying non-payment status ('납부는 하지 않습니다'), and specifying failure modes regarding automatic retries. This is crucial operational context for a mutation tool.

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?

While the description is long, it is necessary to cover the required security, operational, and legal constraints of a financial submission tool. The points are logically ordered from prerequisites to outcome handling.

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 complex, involving legal effect, financial submission, and external workflow management. The description covers all major behavioral aspects, including the read-only status and constraints, leaving no critical ambiguity for the agent.

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?

Given the 100% schema coverage, the description adds semantic weight by explicitly stating the logical constraint that the three confirmation booleans must *all* be true, thereby defining the functional preconditions for a successful submission.

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 title and description clearly identify the tool as a submission function for 'Local Income Tax Special Withholding,' specifying the final act of filing ('실제 신고'). It is unambiguous regarding its primary action.

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 provides extensive guidance, outlining the requirement for a prior session login, the critical condition that all three confirmation flags must be true, and the specific rules regarding cancellation (unpaid status and due date).

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