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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return content — rights_id and the public permission summary — which matters since no output schema exists. It omits pagination/limit behavior and any auth requirements, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Three short sentences: what it finds, what it returns, when to use it — front-loaded with the identity of the tool and no redundant restatement of the title. Every clause carries information.

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 simple two-parameter read-only lookup with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input semantics, return fields, and usage timing. The only gap is pagination/limit behavior, which is minor given the bounded 1-25 range.

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 must compensate. It clarifies that 'query' is a display name and accepts Korean or English, which is genuinely useful, but the 'limit' parameter (1-25) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters explained only by raw type bounds.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Find registered identities by display name') plus scope ('Korean or English'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It implicitly separates itself from rights_lookup by noting it is used when you only have a name, but it never names the sibling tools, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

It states a clear triggering condition ('Use it when you only have a name') and a sequencing rule ('before asking for a rights_id'), which tells the agent where this sits relative to rights_lookup. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, keeping it short of a 5.

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