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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: matching is keyword-based over title+question+answer specifically, and the result set is capped at top 5 with excerpts, telling the agent exactly what shape of answer to expect.

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, no filler, and the front half establishes identity before the mechanical detail. Every clause earns its place: scope, matching behavior, result count, and result form.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only search tool with full annotation and schema coverage, the description covers what an agent needs to call it and anticipate the response. Minor gaps remain: no mention of result ordering/relevance or what happens on an empty result set, though a fixed top-5 return makes pagination notes unnecessary.

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 there is a single required parameter, so the schema already carries the syntax burden. The description still adds real meaning by disclosing which fields the query string is matched against (title, question, answer), which the schema does not say.

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 (search) and resource (VLSI Korea's semiconductor Q&A knowledge base), reinforced with concrete domain examples (STA, HBM, packaging, EDA). This is clearly distinguishable from content-oriented siblings like search_articles and the term-definition tool lookup_term.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the keyword-search entry point into Q&A content, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-a-sibling statement (e.g. lookup_term for a single concept vs search_articles for published articles). The reader must infer the routing from the tool name and the resource description.

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