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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses fallback behavior ('원격 미설정/실패 시 내장 corpus로 graceful 폴백') and filtering priority ('verified 우선'). However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation or any side effects, which would improve transparency.

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 two sentences in Korean, extremely concise. Every phrase adds value: purpose, filters, fallback, usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a good overview but lacks details on return format or potential errors. It explains fallback and filters well, but limit parameter is not addressed, and the meaning of 'patterns' is assumed. Adequate but not 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 coverage is 50% (tags and verified have descriptions, klass and limit do not). The description adds meaning for tags and verified as filters and priority, but klass is only mentioned as a filter without elaboration, and limit is not discussed. The description partially compensates for the low coverage but not fully.

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?

The description clearly states the tool pulls verified patterns from a shared corpus with filtering by tag/klass. It also provides usage context ('라운드 시작 시 알려진 함정 우선 점검용'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly baton operations or other spider utilities.

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 description explicitly mentions when to use this tool (at round start for checking known pitfalls). It does not, however, provide explicit alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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