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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: unauthenticated callers see only active/expired facts, while draft facts require an internal_read scope API key. That is exactly the kind of access-control disclosure an agent needs. What's missing is any statement about pagination, result ordering, or output shape, so it falls short of 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?

Two sentences, both dense with substance, with the scope and evidentiary standard front-loaded and the access caveat second. No filler, though the second sentence packs two distinct ideas (default visibility and the internal_read escalation) into one clause.

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 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this is only partially sufficient: the auth model and domain scope are covered, but as_of and limit are undocumented anywhere, and the absence of a sibling differentiation against search_verified_facts leaves a real routing gap.

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 schema documents none of the 5 parameters; the description partially compensates by naming keyword, domain, and status and by enumerating the status values active/expired/draft. It says nothing about as_of (an unusual point-in-time parameter that needs explanation) or limit (bounds 1–50, default 10), leaving two of five parameters entirely opaque.

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?

Names a specific verb (검색) and a precisely scoped resource: fact records F-01~F-44 cross-verified against primary official Korean sources, across four named domains. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_verified_facts, whose name suggests an overlapping purpose, so an agent cannot confidently pick between them from the description 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?

Usage is only implied: the description tells you what dimensions you can search by (키워드·도메인·상태), but it never states when to reach for this tool instead of search_verified_facts, get_fact, or list_catalog. The auth-dependent visibility note is helpful context, but it is not routing guidance.

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