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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful temporal scope (drivers across all periods, business descriptions from latest reports) and sentence-level scope, but does not describe result structure, pagination behavior, or ranking beyond what the schema already says.

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 compact sentences plus examples, front-loaded with the search scope and content types. There is no redundant filler; each element helps the agent decide whether and how to search.

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 9-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description gives enough purpose and scope to invoke it correctly, while schema descriptions cover parameter details. It could say more about returned sentence metadata and how results are organized, but those gaps are minor.

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 89%, so parameters such as topic, metric, direction, sort, and per_company are already well documented. The description adds example query terms ('HBM', '가동률 하락', '판가 인상') that help formulate the query parameter, but adds little semantics for the other filters. Baseline 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: sentence search across all stocks' periodic reports, with enumerated content types (performance-change reasons, MD&A, business/industry descriptions). The examples and closing use case make it clearly distinguishable from generic search or filing retrieval siblings.

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 a clear use case: '어떤 회사들이 어떤 이유를 대는지 찾을 때' and explains that drivers cover all periods while business descriptions come from the latest reports. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as the generic search or filing tools, nor state when not to use this tool.

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