Register User Policy

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the load. It does disclose a real behavioral rule: calculations only apply when both the contract and riders are POLICY_CERTIFICATE. However, it never explains what 'update' does to an existing policy, what the replace_riders flag (default false) destroys, or whether the operation requires a PIN — significant gaps for a 12-parameter mutation with zero annotation coverage.

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 key facts (register/update, resolve_user_rider pointer) are front-loaded, but the entire content is duplicated verbatim in Korean and English, and the source_type rule is stated twice within the English block alone. Roughly half the tokens are redundant restatement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Still, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 12 parameters, the description leaves the overwrite/replace semantics and the meaning of several optional fields unresolved, so an agent could call it correctly structurally but not confidently behaviorally.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does partially, clarifying source_type, issuer, issued_on format, the US policy_type values, dollar amounts, and rule_config_override placement. But roughly half the parameters (pin, replace_riders, enrolled_year, silson_generation, coverage_amount units per rider) receive no explanation anywhere.

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+resource ('보험을 등록하거나 갱신합니다 / Register or update a policy') and enumerates the US policy_type variants, so the agent knows exactly what resource is being created or modified. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like update_user_rider or register_user beyond one pointer to resolve_user_rider.

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 concrete routing rule: unmapped riders should be confirmed via resolve_user_rider first. It also conditions the source_type/issuer/issued_on combination on reading from a contract, which tells the agent when to supply those fields. No explicit when-not or exclusion against update_user_rider is given.

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