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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds real context: no auth needed, which IDs come back, a per-call token cost ('호출마다 토큰 1소진'), and idempotency-key recovery semantics including that anonymous calls cannot use the key. The only gap is return shape/pagination, which is minor for a read-only list.

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 first two sentences are tightly front-loaded and high value. However, five sentences are devoted to an optional idempotency key on a read-only list call, which is disproportionate to the risk and dilutes the core message.

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 no-output-schema, single-optional-param read tool, the description covers auth requirements, the identity of returned fields, cost, and idempotency behavior. It leaves out return cardinality/pagination and what an empty list means, but nothing critical is missing.

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% with one optional parameter, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's terse note by explaining when to reuse the key (recovering a lost response with identical arguments) versus minting a new one, and by warning that a provider-specific idempotency_key is a different field.

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 and resource ('List the Woori Bank account links this caller registered') and even names the two fields returned (account_link_id, bank_account_credential_id). It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling woori_bank__accounts__transaction_history__search by explaining the IDs are what that tool consumes.

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?

'No credential or login required' establishes the precondition for calling it, and the description points forward to the transaction history tool that consumes the returned IDs. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or saying what to do if the list is empty.

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