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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description still adds real value by disclosing the return payload (id, one-line summary, license, popularity, key facts) and that subcategories are also returned, which the annotations cannot convey.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return contract and the hand-off to codeitso_get_materials. The long parenthetical material list is dense but informative; no filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by specifying the shape of the results and the accompanying subcategory matches. Pagination is handled by limit/offset in the schema, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% and every parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the Korean/English keyword behavior already in the query field and adds no new detail on category, subcategory, or response_format semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 ("Search codeitso's catalog of public app-building materials") and enumerates the material types covered, plus bilingual query support and concrete query examples. An agent can immediately tell this is keyword retrieval over the catalog, distinct from browsing or fetching material detail.

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 routes to siblings partially: it points at codeitso_get_materials for install commands and full details, and references codeitso_browse as the source of subcategory ids. However, it never states the selection rule between search and browse (e.g. use browse when you have no keywords), so the agent must infer the split from the parameter semantics.

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