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 genuinely new behavioral context: the enumerated return content and the not_found/recovery.nextCalls behavior, which annotations cannot express. Minor gap in not describing the error/response envelope more fully.

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?

Three short sentences: return content first, negative disambiguation second, failure recovery third. No filler and the key 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (conditions, features, source evidence, dates), what the id must be, and how to recover from not_found. There is no meaningful remaining gap 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the semantics — and it does, by defining id as search_sites의 sites[].id and explicitly excluding 사이트명, URL, 기능 ID. That prevents the most likely misuse. It doesn't add format/length guidance, but maxLength 80 in the schema covers size.

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 specific verb (조회) and resource (사이트 상세 정보: 이용 조건, 기능, 확인 출처와 날짜), and explicitly rules out the confusable inputs (사이트명·URL·기능 ID). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like search_sites or get_site_guide without opening a schema.

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 names the upstream tool and exact field to source the id from (search_sites의 sites[].id), and gives a recovery path when not_found (recovery.nextCalls로 공개 ID 재탐색). Both the use case and the failure branch are spelled out.

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