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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: an API key is required to call it, and sort=hot changes the ordering to '뜨는 순' (hot/rising). It does not describe pagination, defaults, or result 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?

Compact and front-loaded: key requirement, resource, scope, and the sort special-case all appear in one line. The trailing English gloss '(List threads.)' is redundant with the Korean text and adds no information.

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?

Five parameters, no output schema, and 20% schema coverage leave significant gaps: board enum meanings, default sort, limit bounds/behavior, and pagination expectations are undocumented. For a list endpoint an agent must call correctly on the first try, this is thin.

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 only 20%, so the description needs to compensate and partly does: it explains that results can be scoped by board and stock and that sort=hot means hot/rising order. It says nothing about limit bounds, default sort, or the six board enum values, so compensation is partial.

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 names a specific verb+resource (list threads / 게시글 목록) and narrows the scope to board and stock (게시판·종목별), which distinguishes it from read_thread and create_thread among siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming any alternative, so it lands at clear-but-not-differentiating.

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 only guidance is '[키 필요]' (API key required), which is a prerequisite rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when to pick this over read_feed or read_thread, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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