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

Annotations already cover safety with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the useful scoping behavior that only department-specific notices are returned, but it does not disclose output format, ordering, pagination behavior beyond the page parameter, or behavior for unknown department names. No contradiction.

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?

One concise sentence with concrete examples, no filler, and the core scoping information front-loaded. It earns its place by showing realistic department values.

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 simple two-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with full schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the filter and provides input examples, though it could be stronger by mentioning alternatives or exact-match expectations.

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%, with both page and department already having meaningful descriptions. The examples in the description largely duplicate the schema examples, adding only slight reinforcement of what values department can take.

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 clearly states the tool returns notices for a specific department/division, using a specific verb and resource, and gives concrete examples. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_notices or get_recent_notices, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase '특정 학과/부서 공지만 반환합니다' implies this tool is for department-scoped notice retrieval, and the examples clarify valid inputs. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as search_notices, get_active_notices, or get_notice_detail.

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