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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'matches with slugs + reach-map URLs', which conveys a read-only, non-destructive behavior. However, it does not mention rate limits, error cases, or explicit side-effect declarations, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and output, and the second gives a direct follow-up instruction. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly 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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core usage (search by name), the output (matches with slugs + URLs), and next steps (use slug with related tools). No additional information is needed for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the description baseline is 3. The description adds only the notion of 'by name' which aligns with the 'query' parameter, but it does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already specifies. It does not mention the 'limit' parameter's behavior beyond the schema text.

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 verb ('Search'), resource ('KTRENZ K-pop / K-culture entities'), and scope ('by name'). It also mentions the output (matches with slugs + reach-map URLs), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trending. The follow-up instruction to use the slug with get_artist_reach or get_release_reach further clarifies its role.

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 clearly instructs what to do with the results ('Use the slug with get_artist_reach or get_release_reach'), giving a concrete workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as get_trending, but the context is clear enough for a search-by-name use case.

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