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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world scope, so the trailing 'Read-only' is redundant but harmless. What earns credit is the return contract — 'Returns question, answer, source page' — which matters because there is no output schema and annotations say nothing about response shape.

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 purpose and immediately followed by the return contract. The long topic list is dense but every item corresponds to real query categories in the schema, so nothing is padding.

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?

With three parameters, full schema coverage, safety annotations and the return fields disclosed, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly. The only residual gap is the unstated boundary against get_price_range for pricing questions.

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's topic inventory ('수의계약, 옥외광고물 허가·신고, warranty, PC content control, pitch, power') maps meaningfully onto the 20-value cat enum, helping an agent pick a category key rather than guess. It also signals language-agnostic input, consistent with the q field.

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?

Specific verb ('Search') plus a clearly bounded resource (WOOKANG TECH LED-display answers) and an explicit topic inventory. It is easy to tell apart from get_company_info, get_price_range and submit_inquiry without opening any schema.

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 topic list implies when to reach for this tool (budget, permit, warranty, pitch, power, etc.), which is useful orientation. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative, and the listed 'budget' topic directly overlaps sibling get_price_range, leaving that routing decision unresolved.

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