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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds important behavioral context: it searches the entire catalogue including datasets that have not been loaded, implying results may be metadata rather than actual data. This is valuable beyond the annotations, though no return format or rate limits are mentioned.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose then usage. Bilingual repetition is minimal and serves a clear audience. Every sentence earns its place.

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 full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use, and what to expect ('whether such data exists at all and where to get it'). It lacks explicit details on result format or pagination, but these are minor given the absence of an output 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (entire data.go.kr catalogue), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_data by including datasets not yet loaded. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs.

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: 'Use it when search_data comes back empty,' names the alternative (search_data), and explains the goal (find out whether data exists and where to get it). This is a complete routing instruction with no ambiguity.

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