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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: queries are expected to be Korean natural language, and results contain ids for fetching full documents. This clarifies follow-up behavior without contradicting the 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 front-loaded with the main action and resource, but the long parenthetical enumeration of document types makes it verbose. While each item gives useful context, the list could be shortened without losing the core purpose, so it does not achieve the zero-waste standard of a 5.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description explains that results are ids to pass to fetch, which is essential for follow-up. Combined with annotations and schema, it covers the necessary call context, though edge cases like empty results or sort order are not addressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., query examples, kind enum, limit). The mention of content categories may inform query phrasing but does not enrich the meaning of individual parameters.

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 action (검색한다) and the resource (내만집 반셀프 인테리어 공개 문서), and enumerates content categories to help agents understand scope. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like nmjib_faq_search or nmjib_process_guide, so it lacks the explicit differentiation that would earn a 5.

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 implies usage by describing what is searchable and instructing to pass result ids to fetch for full text, which gives a workflow hint. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria, so guidance is merely implied.

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