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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results carry ids that must be handed to fetch to obtain the body text, which is a two-step retrieval pattern the schema does not reveal. Result count and pagination behavior remain unstated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope, then the use-case topics, then the fetch handoff. The topic enumeration is slightly list-heavy but each element maps to a real query type, so it earns its space.

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 one-parameter search tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: scope, query topics, language, and the follow-up fetch call. Missing only pagination/result-size behavior, which is minor here.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a Korean-language example query, so the schema carries the parameter meaning in full. The description adds no query syntax, length, or escaping guidance beyond what the schema already says, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 concrete verb (검색합니다) and names the resource set it covers: 가이드 · FAQ · 체크리스트 from 카볼트랩. That is more than a restatement of the name, but it never explains how this differs from siblings like carvoltlab_faq or carvoltlab_battery_checklist, which appear to serve overlapping content.

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 gives a clear topic list that defines when to reach for this tool — SOH, 기록 리셋 흔적, 급속 충전 비중, 셀 전압, 보증, 성능·상태점검기록부 questions — and describes the follow-up workflow of passing a returned id to fetch. It stops short of stating when not to use it or why one would pick it over the dedicated sibling tools.

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