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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the comparison dimensions and the 10-result cap, but says nothing about ordering behavior beyond the default or what the comparison rows contain.

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 English sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the Korean line is a verbatim translation that adds no new information for an agent, effectively doubling the token cost. Compact, but half the text is redundant restatement.

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 must convey return content; it does list the four comparison dimensions, which is the right instinct. But for a comparison/ranking tool it omits how results are ordered and what a row looks like, leaving the sort semantics and response shape unclear.

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?

At 67% schema coverage the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that `category` is a *secondary* category and that `limit` is capped at 10, but the `sort` parameter is never mentioned and its schema text only documents the 'korean' enum value, leaving 'popular' and 'pricing' unexplained in both places.

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 (compare) and resource (top AI services in one secondary category) plus the exact comparison dimensions: Korean UI, KRW pricing, starting price, trial conditions. Clear enough to distinguish from search_ai_services or get_ai_service, though no sibling is named explicitly to draw 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?

The phrase 'compare the top AI services in one secondary category' implies the use case (side-by-side selection within a category) and the 'Up to 10 services' cap is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-search_ai_services guidance and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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