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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: it is the generic connector-compatible entry point and it returns ids intended for chaining into fetch. It does not cover result limits or ranking behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the fallback guidance follows immediately. It is on the dense side — the parenthetical about connector/deep-research call shape and the place-count detail are useful but slightly heavy for a one-parameter tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden by stating it returns ids to pass to fetch. Combined with the domain scope and the sibling routing hint, it is sufficient, though it says nothing about result counts or pagination.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description exceeds it by showing the accepted query shapes ('여주 온천', '명일동 중식', 'IU'), which teaches the agent that 'region + kind' concatenation is valid input rather than a bare name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Thea... by name or by region + kind') and names the exact data scope (1.07M Korean places, people, works, organizations). It also distinguishes itself from thea_search/thea_find/thea_entry, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to prefer thea_search / thea_find / thea_entry when possible, and gives the reason (same-name candidates, filters, ratings, views). This is a clear when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-alternatives rule.

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