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

Behavior beyond annotations is disclosed: partial matching across facility name, location, operating hours, phone number, and aliases, plus the empty-query full-list behavior. Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive characteristics, so the description adds meaningful behavioral context without 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?

The description is two compact Korean sentences with no filler. It front-loads the tool's purpose and then states the important empty-query behavior, making every sentence valuable.

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 read-only search tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description is operationally sufficient: it specifies the facility domain, partial-match behavior, and empty-query fallback. Pagination details are left to the schema, which is acceptable given the low complexity.

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 the input schema already documents all three parameters and their semantics. The description adds a small amount of detail by listing operating hours and phone numbers as searchable fields, but it mostly echoes the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: it searches Soongsil University campus facility information such as restaurants, cafes, convenience stores, and bookstores. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_library_book or search_notices.

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 description establishes clear context: use this tool to search campus facility information with partial matching, and when query is empty it returns all facilities. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the facility scope is concrete enough for an agent to route requests correctly.

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