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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true / destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: results carry matchScore when a profile exists, and isContest=true items are competitions that must be disclosed as such when introduced.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and source before the profile and contest nuances. The final instruction about announcing contests is slightly tangential but still operationally relevant, so little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry more of the return-shape burden; it only mentions matchScore appearing in results and says nothing about result fields or pagination output. For a 7-parameter, zero-required search tool the coverage is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 86%, so the schema already documents page, limit, region, search, status, category and profileId in detail. The description only adds that a profile is what triggers matchScore, which is marginal over the schema's own note about profileId.

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 ('정부지원사업 공고를 키워드·카테고리로 검색') plus the data provenance (daily K-Startup collection), so an agent knows exactly what is being searched. It does not name the neighbouring single-lookup (get_support_program) or match-list (list_support_matches) tools, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

Explicitly gives the triggering situations: '특정 사업명을 찾거나 전체를 둘러볼 때 사용하세요' (looking up a named program or browsing everything). It provides clear usage context but no when-not conditions or named alternatives for the sibling search/match tools.

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