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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note — that country/period/currency in the sentence are NOT auto-applied — but the surrounding sentences about "capabilities[].nextCall" and disclosure windows are ambiguous rather than clarifying.

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 domain enumeration is front-loaded and carries most of the value, but the remaining sentences are dense and mix two languages while referencing a response field (capabilities[].nextCall) that is never explained. Several sentences are procedural reminders rather than definitional content.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description alludes to a structured return shape (capabilities[].nextCall) without describing it, and the 300-char query parameter is undocumented. For a multi-domain task-discovery tool this is adequate but leaves real gaps around what the response contains.

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?

One parameter (query) with 0% schema coverage. The description implies query is a natural-language sentence and that its country/period/currency constraints are not automatically honored, which is useful, but it never states format, length, or acceptable query shape explicitly, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Opening sentence gives a clear verb+resource ("Find a supported task") and enumerates the concrete supported domains (US CPI, ECB exchange rates, GDP, HARPEX, KED PER candidates), which an agent can use to tell it apart from siblings like query_ked or run_public_task. The concept of a "supported task" registry is left somewhat implicit, and the mixed Korean/English reduces immediate parseability.

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 hints at usage constraints ("check temporary disclosure and data scope", distinguish direct execution from source-investigation guidance) but never names an alternative tool or states when a sibling should be chosen instead. Usage is implied rather than stated, e.g. nowhere does it say "call this before run_public_task".

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