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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real context beyond them: results are collapsed by topic by default via group=True, collapsed groups must be expanded through `show` using group_ids, n is capped at 20, and region_gap/region_fallback/scope_warning signals appear in the response. It loses a point because the closing '반환:' line largely restates fields already defined in the 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, then organized as scannable bullets covering the main pitfalls in priority order. Some bulk comes from Korean/English duplication of the purpose line and the redundant return-field listing.

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 6-parameter search tool with grouping and regional fallbacks, the description covers the full workflow: query formulation, filter usage, result collapsing, expansion via `show`, retry guidance, and coverage-gap signals. The output schema covers return shape, so no more is needed there.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly does: `query` is a one-line topic phrasing with examples, `fields` holds column conditions, `dtype` accepts API/FILE, `org` filters by institution, `group` toggles collapsing, and `n` is capped at 20. It does not explain matching semantics for `org`/`dtype` (exact vs partial, case sensitivity), leaving a small gap.

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 ('주제로 공공데이터를 찾습니다 / Search Korean public datasets by topic') and scopes it to the datagokr portal. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `fields` tool for column-only conditions, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use routing: topic+column conditions should pass `fields` alongside the query, while column-only conditions belong to the `fields` tool. It also prescribes fallback behavior (drop filters when results look wrong, use region_fallback when no local data exists, split evaluation-style asks into 2-3 searches) and mandates follow-up with `show`.

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