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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: response field list, that body concatenates detail text with per-attachment parsed bodies, an OCR-accuracy caveat telling the agent to verify figures against url, parsed=false handling, and both error shapes. Minor deduction for not stating any size/latency traits, but otherwise rich.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by Purpose/Usage/Response/Rules headers, so an agent can skim to the needed section. Slightly repetitive (title and purpose line restate the same scope) and a couple of sentences are awkwardly phrased, but nothing is padded.

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 fully by documenting the return object, truncation semantics, the attachment-extraction caveat, and both error variants. Nothing needed to call it correctly or interpret the result 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 coverage is 100%, yet the description still adds meaning the schema lacks: the truncated = offset_chars+max_chars < body_total_chars relationship, and that raising max_chars grows the whole response while raising offset_chars continues reading. material_key's expected provenance (from search_materials/search_qnas) is also given.

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 (returns full text for one material_key) and scopes it against siblings by naming search_materials/search_standards/search_qnas as the key sources. An agent can distinguish this retrieval tool from the search tools 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use mappings from user utterances to calls ("tf:40689 전문" → material_key, "길어서 잘렸는데 이어서" → offset_chars) and names the producing siblings. The continuation case is explicitly handled rather than left to inference.

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