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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds genuinely new context by defining what "agent-ready" means — the integration (API/MCP/webhook) must be verified — which is a behavioral filter not captured by any annotation. It stops short of describing result shape or how unverified services are handled.

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, front-loaded with the identity of the directory before the use-case trigger. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler or repetition of the name/title.

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, optional-parameter search tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing piece — what qualifies as an "agent-ready" result. It is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around result format and pagination that are not critical for correct invocation.

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 all four parameters (limit, query, category, requires) are already documented, including the default/cap on limit and the default behavior of requires. The description only adds example query terms, which is illustrative but marginal; the schema does the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (find) and a precise resource (Korean SaaS that agents can call), and defines the discriminating filter: only services with confirmed API, MCP server, or webhook. This implicitly separates it from sibling `search_korean_saas`, but it never names that sibling or states the contrast explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than asserted.

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?

Gives concrete usage context and example queries ("Korean payment API", "MCP-capable domestic CRM", "API that sends AlimTalk") that map cleanly to the `query` and `requires` parameters, telling the agent what situation calls for this tool. It does not, however, say when NOT to use it or route the agent to `search_korean_saas`/`find_korean_ai_providers` for broader or adjacent lookups.

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