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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a content inventory (useful given there's no output schema) but says nothing about error behavior for mismatched level/school_id or any limits on returned nearby apartments.

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 English and Korean sentences say essentially the same thing twice, roughly doubling length without adding information for an agent. The content itself is front-loaded and the field list is dense and useful, but the duplication is real waste.

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 carries the return-value burden and does it well by enumerating each data block per school level. Gaps are minor: no mention of failure modes, and the school_id→get_school_district dependency appears only in the 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that the admission-data section of the response differs semantically by the 'level' enum value, which the bare enum does not convey. The school_id format guidance lives in the schema rather than the description.

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 states a specific resource ('School profile') and enumerates exactly what it returns: type, student/teacher counts, province rank, admission outcomes, and nearby apartments. It is clearly distinct from list-style siblings, though it doesn't name get_school_district as its feeder tool in prose (only the schema does).

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?

Usage is only implied: the description tells you the output varies by school level (special-purpose high school admission rates for middle schools, university entrance for high schools), which implicitly guides level selection. There is no explicit 'when to use this vs. get_school_district' statement or stated prerequisite in the description itself.

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