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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that space-separated words are combined with AND and that category accepts either a Korean name or UUID. The verb '검색' implies a non-mutating read operation, but the description does not mention result ordering, whether matching applies to title/content/both, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit parameter.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second packs two useful semantic details (AND behavior and category format). It is appropriately concise for a simple search tool.

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 straightforward search tool with 3 simple parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it specifies search target, query combination behavior, category format, and the schema covers limit. The only minor gap is not explaining what the returned results look like or how they are ordered, but this is not critical for a search action.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that multiple whitespace-separated words in the query parameter are all required (AND semantics), which is not stated in the schema. The category-as-name-or-UUID detail is redundant with the schema but reinforces expected usage.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Search Jeju Dol-dam posts by keyword.' It is distinct from sibling search tools like search_jobs and search_property_listings because of the explicit '제주돌담 게시글' scope, and from get_post/get_feed through the keyword-search action. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling to differentiate itself.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that get_post is for retrieving a single post or get_feed for browsing posts, nor does it state any exclusions. The AND semantics and category format are about how to use parameters, not about when to use the tool.

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