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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup. The description adds useful behavioral scope by disclosing that results are nearest schools ordered by distance and include provincial school-district rank and school IDs, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 definition is short and front-loads the core result: nearest schools, distance, and district rank. The Korean sentence largely duplicates the English one, which is redundant for an AI agent, but the overall size remains efficient.

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 simple two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough context about returned concepts: nearest schools, walking distance, provincial rank, and school IDs. It could be stronger by clarifying how it relates to get_school, but it is largely 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 100%, and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the source of danji_id and the per_level range. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific resource and operation: nearest elementary, middle, and high schools for an apartment complex, including walking distance and school-district rank. It is clear what data is returned, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling get_school, which could also concern schools.

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 implies the tool is used for school-district information around a specific apartment complex, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison with get_school. The only helpful routing hint, that danji_id comes from search_apartments, is in the schema rather than the description.

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