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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The Korean warning about server instructions is vague and not specific to behavioral traits.

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 two sentences plus a Korean note. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The Korean note adds context but is not essential for the core function. Overall concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description vaguely mentions 'example code (data + config)' without specifying format, error handling, or pagination. For a tool with two parameters and sibling tools, it lacks sufficient detail to be fully complete.

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%; both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., examples, constraints, types). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool finds runnable SBChart2.0 code examples by feature/use case, distinguishing it from sibling tools like getSBChartAPIDetail (API details) and listSBChartAPIs (listing APIs). The verb 'Find' and resource 'code examples' are specific.

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 explicitly says 'Use when you want working sample code rather than the API reference', providing clear context for when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not state when not to use or list alternatives explicitly, but the contrast is sufficient.

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