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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, such as searching both title and body, restricting to a category when provided, and compact output mode affecting the returned fields.

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 three concise sentences with no redundant filler. It front-loads the core search behavior before adding filtering and output-format options, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 read-only keyword search tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, filtering, and output modes. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the compact vs. default return explanation, though response ordering or result limits are not mentioned.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds semantic value: keyword targets title/body, category restricts the search scope, and compact=true changes the response shape. It does not add much for page, but the schema already documents it.

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 (search) on a specific resource (Soongsil University notices), noting that notices containing the keyword in title or body are returned. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_recent_notices and get_active_notices, which are list-oriented rather than keyword-search oriented.

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 conveys that this tool is for keyword-based notice search and explains how the category filter narrows results. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_recent_notices, get_active_notices, or get_notice_detail, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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