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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine beyond-schema context: it discloses the contents of the response and flags conditional availability ('where published') for the contribution basis, warning the agent a field may be absent.

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 response contents are front-loaded, which is good, but the entire English sentence is then repeated verbatim in Korean, adding zero new information and roughly doubling length. Appropriate content, wasteful packaging.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden entirely — and it does so by enumerating each field returned plus the conditional nature of the contribution estimate. Only the pagination/format and error behavior for an unknown site_id are unstated.

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% — both site_id (source and example format) and previous_asset_manwon (units, example, empty-case behavior) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so it sits at the baseline for a fully-covered 2-param tool.

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?

Names a specific resource ('redevelopment/reconstruction site') and enumerates exactly what is returned (stage, timeline, AI expected approval month, supply plan, permit history, contribution basis). This clearly contrasts with search_redevelopment, though the description itself never names that sibling — the differentiation is only in 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?

The description gives no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing. The only hint of workflow ('site_id from search_redevelopment') lives in the schema property description, not the tool description, so the description alone leaves usage to inference.

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