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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: which post-processing layers are deliberately suppressed, that output is the raw model inference, and that with_sense routes through a beta WSD path. It omits return-shape and any latency/size caveats, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core differentiator (no post-processing) followed by the exclusion behaviour and then the alternative route. No filler, and the most decision-relevant clause comes first.

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 analysis tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, suppression behaviour, and sibling routing adequately. The remaining gap is that the shape of the returned morpheme/tag structure is only sketched via the schema's format hints, not described.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only adds a marginal nuance for with_sense ('후처리 없이 함께 돌려줍니다') that the schema already conveys as WSD beta; format, encoding, and auto_split_sentence get no extra treatment in prose.

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 ('순수 형태소 분석 수행') plus a precise scope qualifier: no post-processing (compound decomposition, auto spacing, user dictionary). It also explicitly names the sibling it is not, analyze_syntax, so the agent can distinguish it 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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('모델 성능 평가나 말뭉치 재태깅처럼 후처리가 섞이지 않은 출력이 필요할 때만') and an explicit alternative ('일반적인 분석에는 analyze_syntax 를 쓰세요'). Both the selecting condition and the routing target are stated.

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