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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior annotations do not: the return content (today's value plus 30-day median/min/max per series), which is especially valuable since there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and return shape, and every English sentence earns its place. The full Korean restatement duplicates the same content, which is reasonable for a bilingual audience but does cost some compactness.

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 with no output schema, the description supplies the filter axes and the shape of what comes back, so an agent can call it correctly. Remaining gaps (result ordering, how limit interacts with broad queries) are minor rather than blocking.

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 goes beyond the schema by giving concrete metric examples (package_weekly_buyers, hotel_price, tour_price_from, etc.) that the schema defers to an external SCHEMA.md table, genuinely improving how the metric parameter can be populated.

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 ('Search the archive's series'), defines what a series is ('one series = one comparable condition'), and enumerates the filter dimensions (metric, city, country, free text). It is clearly a discovery tool distinct from get_series_history, though it never names that sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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 by listing the filter dimensions and the returned statistics, so an agent can infer this is the entry point for locating series. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of get_series_history as the follow-up for historical data.

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