find_tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds what annotations can't, namely the shape of the return (candidate list with name, one-line description, when-to-use, and match reason) and the no-result behavior. It doesn't discuss ranking or qualities of matches beyond '일치 이유', a minor gap for a search tool.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then clearly labeled 언제/입력/결과 blocks, so an agent can scan it in one pass. Minor redundancy with the schema (e.g. restating that n is a count) keeps it just below top marks.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the return-value burden: it describes the candidate list fields and the empty-result branch with a concrete next step. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly or interpret its output is missing.

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, including the keyword alias for korean-tax-mcp find_article compatibility. The description only adds that query may be phrased in everyday language and can be a 세목/쟁점/조문, which is a modest value-add above the baseline.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('맞는 계산 도구 찾기') and immediately scopes it against the 70+ sibling tools, which makes clear this is the discovery/router tool rather than a calculation tool. It also names a distinct fallback path (korean-tax-mcp for 조문) so an agent can tell it apart from every sibling at a glance.

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 '언제' section states explicit trigger conditions: when the right tool name doesn't come to mind, and mandatorily before concluding 'this calculation tool doesn't exist.' It also gives the post-condition branch (no candidates → look up 조문 in korean-tax-mcp), leaving nothing to inference.

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