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

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond this by disclosing that live requests are attempted and reported for success, that cached results may be returned, and that original/seed sources and query timestamps are separated in the response. This materially improves an agent's understanding of runtime behavior.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and uses the second sentence to convey response characteristics. Every clause adds useful information without redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the search source, the kind of content searched, and high-level response structure (live attempt/success, cache, source, timestamp), which is helpful given there is no output schema. It stops short of naming exact output fields or pagination behavior, but the parameter schema and annotations cover much of the remaining context.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds only limited parameter-related context (e.g., the live/cache distinction), but does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 a specific action: searching official Soongsil University regulation and academic guide pages for policy basis paragraphs related to academic rules, graduation, and scholarships. It is distinct and informative, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar sibling tools such as list_academic_policy_sources or get_academic_policy_brief.

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 search scope: this tool is appropriate when policy evidence paragraphs are needed from official academic sources. However, the description never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives, or when not to use it, so the guidance relies on inference rather than direct instruction.

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