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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output shape depends on format (compact gives a 'surface/POS' string; full gives the full JSON structure) and that with_sense is a beta WSD feature that returns sense numbers and definitions. This is useful context, but it says nothing about performance, limits, or errors. For a read-only analysis tool with annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

It is four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the output formats and the beta option. Every sentence carries information; only the beta caveat adds mild noise.

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?

There are 8 parameters and no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it partly does by describing both output formats and the sense payload. The remaining parameters are fully covered by schema descriptions, making this nearly complete for a read-only analysis tool.

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%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description goes beyond the schema by giving a concrete disambiguation example for with_sense (배[腹]/배[船]/배[梨]) and by spelling out the compact-versus-full output contract. It does not explain encoding, auto_spacing, or auto_jointing, but those are fully documented in the schema.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource: Korean morphological analysis that splits sentences into eojeol and morphemes and attaches POS tags. That distinguishes it from siblings like correct_grammar or search_dict, but it never contrasts with analyze_syntax_raw or tokenize, the closest alternatives.

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?

It explains what each format and with_sense value produces, which implicitly guides parameter choice, but it gives no explicit statement of when to use this tool instead of analyze_syntax_raw or tokenize. Usage is only inferable from the described outputs.

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