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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: deterministic output, curated taxonomy based on authoritative standards, fallback to k_snippets when match=None, and honest gaps signaling. It also explicitly states '읽기 전용 · 외부 호출 없음' which aligns with the annotations.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the core action and examples, then routes to alternatives, then clarifies parameters and behavior. Every sentence has a purpose, though it is denser than necessary in the middle section with shorthand arrows and symbols. Still highly efficient for a Korean-language tool description.

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?

Given only one param, full schema coverage, an output schema present, and rich annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: when to use, what to pass, what to expect, and how to handle fallback/gaps. Nothing important 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying the query form ('X의 종류/체계/구성요소' 꼴), giving examples, and warning about the failure mode when a single word is passed. This is meaningful guidance that helps the agent form the correct query.

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 ('완전 열거한다') and a specific resource ('종류·구성요소·분류'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare, define, and k_snippets. It also provides concrete examples ('건축물 하중의 종류', '구조용 강종 체계') that make the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly says when to call it ('X의 종류/체계' 요청에 호출하라) and names each alternative with its routing condition (순서는 scenario · 비교는 compare · 한 용어의 뜻은 define · 수치·조문은 k_snippets). It also warns against supplying a single word and advises the required query shape.

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