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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — the automatic synonym re-search with the terms reported in related, and the offset/nextOffset continuation rule. It does not discuss rate limits or result ordering, so it is not a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then defaults, then pagination, then the fallback path. Every sentence carries information, though the pagination sentence partially duplicates the offset field description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, yet the description still names nextOffset and related, tying them to the workflow. Defaults are fully documented, leaving only ranking and result ordering unaddressed.

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; however, the description adds cross-parameter semantics that the schema does not spell out: omitting the dates defaults to the Korean-time weekend, and pagination continues by feeding nextOffset back into offset. That goes beyond field-by-field documentation.

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?

It combines a specific verb (찾습니다) with the resource (공개 행사) and the three filter axes (날짜, 지역, 검색어), so the agent can tell it is a multi-filter search rather than a single-record lookup like get_event. It does not explicitly contrast itself with ask_events or get_event_coverage, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 clearly states default behavior when date fields are empty (this weekend, Korea time), which is a usage condition, but it never says when to pick this tool over ask_events or get_event. Usage is implied by the filter descriptions rather than by explicit routing guidance.

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