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 context annotations cannot express: that it can be called without an auth key and is free ('인증키 없이 호출할 수 있습니다. [무료]'), plus the relevance-label output. It stops short of describing ranking behavior or result limits on the search itself.

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?

Purpose and the 'use before choosing' rule are front-loaded, and the sentences are short. The cost is full bilingual duplication of every sentence, which doubles length for a single audience of one agent, though it is defensible for a Korean/English service.

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 is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields (name, title, description, relevance) and the top-K behavior, and it discloses the auth-free access constraint. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 both parameters are already documented with examples, making 3 the baseline. The description adds value by clarifying that the task string may be Korean or English, which meaningfully widens how the agent can phrase the input.

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 ('Find the APICK tools that best fit a task') and specifies the return shape (top matches with a high/medium/low relevance label). It is instantly distinguishable from every sibling, since those are concrete capability tools while this is the discovery layer over them.

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?

Explicitly states the sequencing rule: 'Use it before choosing among the many tools on this server.' That tells the agent both when to use it and why (navigating a large sibling set), which is exactly the routing guidance a meta-tool needs.

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