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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: deep profile consumes 5x quota, higher limit degrades relevance, as_of pins the standard to a date, returned snippets must be quoted verbatim, and relevance=low/lacks_answer=true means the knowledge base lacks the data—consistent with the closed-world hint. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Long but tightly structured: purpose and examples first, then routing to alternatives, then parameter guidance, then return/negative-signal handling. The only redundancy is the closing 'read-only, no external call' line, which mostly restates annotations. Overall every functional sentence earns its place for a nuanced tool.

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 5-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers when to use, when not to use, how to set each parameter, cost/quota behavior, return quoting expectations, and failure semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the orthogonal distinction between scope (which discipline) and profile (how deep), warns to omit scope when unknown, and notes that increasing limit lowers relevance of later results—all beyond the schema field text. It also reinforces as_of format and the scope_split/scope_partial/scope_absent signals, making the parameters more actionable.

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 concrete retrieval action: finds numeric values and verbatim clause text from Korean construction standards (KDS/KCS/KS) and building statutes. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by saying term meanings go to define, lists to enumerate, sequences to scenario, differences to compare, and rationale to answer_why. This is specific and non-tautological.

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 says to use this tool before web search when attaching evidence to construction/civil/shell/structural/MEP questions, and lists the sibling tool for each other intent (define, enumerate, scenario, compare, answer_why). It also instructs calling site_context first and passing its scope when land/administrative area is involved, so an agent knows when this tool is not the entry point.

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