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

Annotations only declare readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld=false; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them — whitespace-insensitive matching with a concrete example, the fact that semantic recall is unsupported, and a ranking quirk where '전망품 12' style queries push that verse to the top. It does not say what a result row contains (only that it carries an id) or how results are otherwise ordered or paginated.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then matching semantics, rejection rule, ranking trick, and citation workflow — each carrying distinct, non-redundant information. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 4-parameter read-only search with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the matching model, the query-writing rules, and the citation path. The remaining gap is that the agent is told results have ids but not what else comes back per hit, so it cannot judge result richness without calling it.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning for q: the whitespace-collapsing example and the 'chapter name + verse number' syntax are query-construction rules the schema does not express. book, mode, and limit are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable because their descriptions there are already rich.

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?

'경전 원문 전문 검색' states a specific verb and resource, and the substring-matching sentence sharply separates it from any semantic or dictionary search. It also names get_passage as the follow-up tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_sungga, so an agent must infer which corpus to use from the query itself.

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 a clear when-to ('실제 본문에 나오는 말로 찾을 것') and a clear when-not ('글자가 겹치지 않는 뜻 검색은 안 된다'), plus an explicit next step for citation. What is missing is any routing rule against the sibling search_sungga tool when the agent is unsure whether the passage is a scripture or a sungga.

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