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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior about reliability-based ordering and returned fields, but omits pagination behavior, result limits beyond the schema, and any operational constraints.

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?

The description is front-loaded and compact, with no wasted sentences. The field list '제목·방·발췌·주소' is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous about whether those are result fields or search targets.

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?

Given the rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate for invocation. However, it leaves the agent without guidance on alternatives and does not fully clarify the terse field list or result behavior.

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 query, room, and limit are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions '방' and result-like fields such as title, excerpt, and address, but it does not materially extend the schema's parameter meanings.

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 purpose: searching information posts, with the added qualifier that results match site search and are ordered by reliability. It is clearer than a bare name, but it does not distinguish this tool from related siblings such as search_events or list_rooms.

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives. It does not mention search_events, list_rooms, or any conditions that would select this tool over those siblings.

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