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), so the description only needs to add context. It does add the return-field list (이름·소개·주소·관련 방 주소), which matters since no output schema exists, but says nothing about limits, filtering behavior, or ordering.

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 compact fragments, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the returned fields; nothing is wasted. Slightly under-specified rather than padded, which is the right trade-off here.

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 read-only two-parameter list tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, naming the returned fields largely fills the gap left by the absent output schema. Missing only the ordering/pagination nuance, which the schema's `limit` partially covers.

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 both `limit` (default/max 20) and `query` (matches name/intro) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of '이름·한 줄 소개' loosely echoes the searchable fields but adds no syntax or behavioral detail 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+resource ('1분 테스트 목록' = list of 1-minute tests) and enumerates the test categories (황금귀·타자·러너·신발 등), which clearly separates it from siblings like list_rooms or search_events. It does not name an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_rooms, search_posts, or listening_test_stats — the agent must infer from the resource name alone. The type examples help identify the content but do not route between tools.

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