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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, it discloses important behaviors: identical a and b yield an empty result, deep profile consumes 5x quota, and it must not fabricate a path when none is found. These are material execution traits not present in 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 dense but well-organized: purpose/examples, alternatives, parameter guidance, then failure behavior. Every sentence adds operative value, and the most important routing information is front-loaded.

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?

With 4 params, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description still adds all missing operational context: when to use, how to phrase inputs, cost/quota warning, and honesty requirement on empty results. Nothing important for correct invocation is left unstated.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical usage semantics: a/b must be concept names/phrases rather than full sentences, same a=b returns empty, scope axes are ANDed, and deep should only be used after default returns empty. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '두 개념이 어떻게 이어지는지 확인한다' (verifies how two concepts are connected), and gives concrete examples. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming traverse, scenario, answer_why, and evidence_for as alternatives for different tasks.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('출발·도착이 분명할 때') and supplies a '대신 쓸 것' list with conditions for each alternative. This gives an agent clear routing criteria without needing to inspect other definitions.

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