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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so the bar is lower; the description still adds meaningful behavioral context by stating it does NOT re-check external sites on query and that stored access-success is not proof of fresh data. This sets return-value expectations beyond what annotations convey, though it omits latency or caching details.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the key caveat (no live re-check) is stated plainly at the end. Slightly repetitive phrasing across the date-related sentences, but overall efficient.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description succeeds in naming the three returned components and warning about their interpretation. The main remaining gap is the undefined id parameter, which leaves an agent unsure what to pass in.

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?

There is one required parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage and no enum, and the description never explains what the id identifies or its expected format. The schema only constrains length, so the description should have clarified whether id is a site id, task id, or evidence id, and it does not.

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 resource (source evidence) and enumerates the three distinct pieces returned: description review date, stored access check result, and material reference date. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from related siblings like check_harpex_update or get_site_details, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can guess this is for checking provenance and recency. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no reference to the alternative check_harpex_update, which appears to overlap. The line '접속 성공은 최신 데이터라는 뜻이 아닙니다' hints at interpretative caution but not selection guidance.

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