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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the query language is Korean natural language, and results are a two-step retrieval whose ids feed the fetch tool. It stops short of describing result shape or ranking/pagination behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the description then dumps roughly thirty individual guide titles into a single parenthetical. That enumeration inflates token cost without helping an agent decide or invoke; a category-level summary would carry the same information at a fraction of the length.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: corpus scope, Korean NL input, and the id→fetch follow-up. Only the result shape (fields returned, snippet vs. full text) is left implicit.

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% — query, kind (enum), and limit are all documented with examples and bounds in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: searching 내만집(nmjib.com)'s public self-renovation documents, and the long parenthetical makes the covered corpus concrete (magazines, method guides, guide chapters). It also clarifies the two-step flow (take result id → fetch). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling nmjib_faq_search, which is a comparable search tool.

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 implied: query in Korean natural language, then pass the returned id to fetch for the full text. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over nmjib_faq_search, nmjib_process_guide, or nmjib_cost_reference, and no exclusions or preconditions.

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