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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it searches a broader universe than loaded datasets and indicates that results point to where the data can be obtained. It does not describe output structure or pagination, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core scope appears in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance. The bilingual repetition adds length but does not obscure the message; it remains well-structured and to the point.

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 search tool with fully documented parameters and clear sibling differentiation, the description covers the essential semantics: what is searched, when to use it, and what the results reveal. The lack of an output schema is partially offset by stating that results indicate existence and source, though a bit more return-format detail would make it fully complete.

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 query, type, and limit are already documented in the input schema. The description adds overall scope context but does not enrich individual parameter meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search the entire data.go.kr catalogue — INCLUDING datasets we have not loaded yet.' It also differentiates itself from sibling search tools by explicitly invoking search_data and contrasting scope, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use it when search_data comes back empty, to find out whether such data exists at all and where to get it.' This names the alternative tool and the exact scenario where this tool should be selected, leaving no ambiguity.

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