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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive/no-openWorld annotations, it discloses substantial behavior: score interpretation (60 = open to all, 60-100 rises with verified eligibility), that ineligible programs are pre-filtered out, and that isContest=true items are competitions that must be disclosed as such. These are non-obvious traits an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then score semantics, filtering note, profileId guidance, and the contest caveat. Each sentence adds an actionable detail, though the contest-disclosure instruction is slightly tangential to tool invocation.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers filtering semantics, sort behavior, and key returned attributes (score, isContest, programTypeLabel). It does not describe pagination/return shape explicitly, but that is minor given the schema and annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains what the score values mean (contextualizing minScore/sort=score) and clarifies profileId's default (representative business when omitted). That goes beyond the schema's terse field notes.

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 (retrieve a list of government support-program recommendations matching the business profile) with scope (open announcements only, sorted by match score). This clearly separates it from the sibling list_procurement_matches and search_support_programs.

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 a concrete usage trigger ('우리 회사가 받을 수 있는 지원금 뭐 있어?') and explains profileId behavior for multi-business users (omitted = representative). It does not name sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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