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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the corpus size and composition (227/227 documents across nine pillars) and the return shape (titles, short snippets, source links), which is not present in any structured field.

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 verb and resource, and the return-shape sentence earns its place. The bilingual restatement is slightly redundant for an English-reading agent but is defensible for a deliberately bilingual tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers the return format, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is parameter-level guidance (limit semantics, pillar filtering behavior) and no routing guidance against the two sibling tools.

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 50%: query has an example and pillar is annotated 'optional filter', while lang and limit are documented only by enum/default. The description compensates partially by spelling out the nine pillars in readable form and flagging the English/Korean search duality, but it says nothing about limit or how results are capped.

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 (Search) and resource (227 EN / 227 KO curated wisdom documents) and enumerates the nine pillars covered, so the scope is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself explicitly from siblings like wisdom_get_doc or wisdom_list_pillars, which an agent must infer from the tool names alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is the implicit 'search by keyword' framing, which the agent has to infer.

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