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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: only returns services confirmed to be in operation, and searches specific fields. It does not describe output structure or pagination, but these are less critical for a read-only search tool and the schema covers limit.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core function, and uses one sentence plus example queries. Every phrase adds value: search fields, active-only filter, category narrowing, and concrete usage examples. No redundancy or wasted words.

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 simple search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers search scope, the active-service filter, and category narrowing. It does not specify result fields, but the sibling get_korean_saas likely provides details, so this level of completeness is acceptable.

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?

The schema descriptions already cover all three parameters with examples and defaults (limit, query, category). The description adds only a marginal reinforcement that category can narrow results, which the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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's function: searching for Korean SaaS, with specific search targets (name, tagline, description, tags) and a filter for active services. It distinguishes from sibling tools via the verb 'search' and explicit scope, e.g., get_korean_saas retrieves a specific service, list_saas_categories lists categories.

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 provides clear usage context with realistic example queries ('한국 AI 도구', '국산 협업툴') and mentions narrowing by category. It does not explicitly mention when to use alternative tools (e.g., get for a single SaaS, compare for comparisons), so it lacks explicit exclusions but is still unambiguous about when search is appropriate.

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