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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: the fallback ordering logic (upcoming events prioritized, else most recent past events) and date-sorted return. That is real behavioral context beyond the schema. It still omits any statement about permissions, data freshness, or empty-result behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then return content, then the ordering/fallback rule. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information (what it returns) is front-loaded.

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 must describe returns, and it does so adequately (schedule events including 접수 시작·마감, date-ordered, with a stated fallback). For a simple 2-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only result-shape specifics like empty-result handling are 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (company, limit) are fully documented in the schema including the 1-10 bound and default. The description only restates that lookup is by company name, adding no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('채용 일정을 기업명으로 조회합니다') and defines the data domain (Korean public institutions/공기업), which helps separate it from lookup_job_posting. It does not explicitly contrast itself against the sibling tools, but the scope is clear enough to select it.

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?

Usage is implied by the stated return behavior ('오늘 이후 예정된 일정을 우선 반환하고, 없으면 최근 지난 일정을 반환합니다'), which tells the agent what it will get without the agent asking. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. lookup_job_posting or lookup_competition_ratio guidance, and no exclusions.

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