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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable context by stating it provides only brand, product name, and specifications (not price or stock), and enumerates the categories. This goes beyond the annotation safety profile and informs the agent about output scope, which is useful. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is somewhat long but each part is purposeful: it opens with the core function and the no-price caveat, then lists categories, gives examples, and ends with routing to the alternative. It is front-loaded and structured clearly, though it could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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 search tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, scope, categories, and alternative for pricing. It does not explicitly describe the return format (e.g., list vs. single item), but it states the tool provides brand, product name, and specifications, which implies the output content. This is adequate for an agent to know when to call it and what to expect.

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 75% (brand, query, category have descriptions; limit has none). The description reinforces the meaning of brand, category, and keyword through the main sentence, but does not add new details about the parameters themselves, such as limit behavior or format expectations. Since coverage is above 50% but below 80%, the description adds modest value over the schema but doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented limit parameter.

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 clearly states the tool finds interior materials and appliances by category, brand, and keyword, and explicitly notes it does not return price or stock. It also lists the exact categories and example queries, and distinguishes itself from the sibling nmjib_material_request by routing price/purchase inquiries there. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 concrete when-to-use conditions with example queries like '내만집에 어떤 강마루 있어?' and '제일벽지 실크 벽지 목록', and explicitly says that for price/purchase, use nmjib_material_request or the app. This is explicit guidance on usage and alternatives.

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