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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description's 'Read-only' mirrors. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating no resident registration number is required from the caller and that the prerequisite login is mandatory, useful behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the prerequisite and the core purpose. No filler. Slightly denser than strictly necessary but efficient overall.

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 7-parameter search tool with a rich schema and safety-relevant annotations, the description adequately covers the prerequisite login, read-only behavior, and selection semantics. A minor gap is not describing what the result list contains beyond '피보험자', but no output schema exists and the schema parameters carry most of the burden.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters including cross-references to workplace_save (receipt_no) and subsidy_pack (programme_key). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Uses a specific verb (List/search) with a clear resource (사업장 고용보험 피보험자 who can be named as subsidy targets). Explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating targets are chosen from this list, never created, which separates it from target_save and target_init.

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?

States a hard prerequisite (prior work24__auth__npki_session__login with same account_link_id) and explains the workflow role of the tool (candidates are selected from the returned list, not created). It doesn't name an alternative tool, but the 'never created' phrasing clarifies when this is appropriate versus the target_save/modify siblings.

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