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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this ('Read-only'). Beyond that it adds genuinely useful behavior: the auth-session prerequisite keyed to the same account_link_id, and the cross-tool fact that the actual document list is issued by draft_validate keyed by 접수번호. This is more than the annotations provide.

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?

Front-loads the hard prerequisite, then the purpose, then the cross-tool caveat. Dense but each clause carries information (auth dependency, return categories, draft_validate handoff, ordering). Slightly packed into a few sentences, but nothing is padding.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what the response contains (institution values, customer fields, registered payment accounts, attachment guidance) and by stating the auth prerequisite and ordering. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents programme_key, account_link_id, and business_management_no in detail. The description adds only a marginal constraint — that account_link_id must match the login session — while programme_key and business_management_no semantics remain solely in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource — 'List what the applicant must supply before any write' — and enumerates the categories returned (institution-provided values, customer-required fields, payment accounts, attachment procurement). It explicitly distinguishes itself from draft_validate (which issues the document list) and workplace_save (the write it precedes), so an agent can route 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 a clear prerequisite ('REQUIRES prior work24__auth__npki_session__login call with same account_link_id') and explicit sequencing ('call this before workplace_save'), and names the sibling relationship with draft_validate. It stops short of stating when-not to call it, but the context is unambiguous.

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