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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing corpus size (58 items), the content boundaries of that corpus, and an output obligation ('ตอบโดยอ้างลิงก์หน้าต้นทางด้วย' — cite the source page link in the answer). It does not discuss result limits or ranking behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 compact clauses — what it searches, when to use it, and how to present results — with the resource and its scope front-loaded. Nothing is padding, though the parenthetical topic list is somewhat dense for a single sentence.

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-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, when to invoke, and the citation requirement for the answer. The absence of an output schema is largely mitigated by the citation instruction, though return shape (list of Q&A vs single match) remains 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema itself already carries the key query advice (short keyword beats long sentence), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no further guidance on how to shape the query string, making this the adequate baseline of 3.

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 ('ค้น' / search) and a specific resource (the CODENIVERSE official FAQ, 58 items) and enumerates the topic scope (terms of service, duration, pricing, hiring, post-delivery care). This clearly separates it from siblings like search_articles and get_article without the agent needing to open any 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?

Explicitly instructs 'ใช้ก่อนตอบคำถามเชิงเงื่อนไขของบริษัทเสมอ' — always use this before answering conditional/terms questions about the company, which is a concrete triggering condition. It does not explicitly name when to prefer a sibling (e.g. search_articles for non-FAQ content), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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