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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds partial-match search behavior and response contents (title, author, call number, location, availability) plus pagination metadata. This adds context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the main purpose, then cover response contents, search matching behavior, and read-only/action separation. No filler words.

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 is complete for a search tool: it covers purpose, response contents, pagination metadata, search matching, and read-only status. With annotations covering idempotency and no output schema, the main remaining gap is not explaining page/size defaults in prose, but those are already in the input schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters well. The description adds useful search semantics: partial matching on title/author/publication info, which clarifies how the query parameter behaves. Slightly less than a 5 because some parameter details are already fully in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('숭실대학교 중앙도서관 소장 도서를 키워드로 검색합니다'), lists the returned fields, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like borrow/reserve actions. It clearly tells the agent what this tool does and what it returns.

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 explicitly notes that this is read-only and that loan/reservation actions are separate tools, which helps route usage. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions beyond the separation of actions.

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