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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the data source, dataset scale, that open_now is a server-side judgment based on Korean time, and exactly what each result contains (per-day hours, phone, coordinates). Gaps remain around pagination/truncation behavior and how holiday hours interact with open_now, but the core behavioral profile is clear.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and how large the dataset is, followed by filter hints and output/attribution guidance. Every sentence carries information, though the attribution instruction sits a bit awkwardly after the result-fields sentence.

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 7-optional-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, source, key filter semantics, returned fields, and the page_url attribution requirement. Only pagination/limit behavior and total-result reporting are left unexplained, which is a minor gap given the schema documents limit.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description only reinforces open_now semantics (server-side, Korean time) and gives a day='sun' example; it adds nothing for region, kind, name, emergency, or limit beyond the schema.

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 with scope: searching Jeju clinics/hospitals (~1,000) and pharmacies (~300), sourced from National Medical Center public data. No sibling tool covers medical facilities, so the agent can immediately distinguish it from search_jobs, search_posts, or find_quiet_spots.

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 concrete usage patterns — open_now=true for currently-open facilities, day='sun' for Sunday care — and instructs the agent to surface page_url as a source/detail link to the user. It does not state when-not-to-use or how to combine filters, but there are no competing siblings requiring routing guidance.

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