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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it merges road-name and jibun result sets and ranks by match score, and discloses a per-call cost ('호출당 10포인트'), which is valuable for call planning.

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 with the core behavior, then usage context, then cost tag. Each sentence carries distinct information with no filler, though the English and Korean sentences partially duplicate the same core statement.

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 does the work of conveying what comes back (ranked, merged road/jibun candidates) and the usage context. Combined with read-only/open-world annotations and a fully documented schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only minor gaps like result shape specifics remain.

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 all three parameters (query, size with default/max, category enum) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of merging road and jibun results loosely maps to the category enum but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (return ranked candidates), resource (Korean address candidates), and scope (partial input, merging road-name and jibun results). The 'partial input' and 'merging' framing distinguishes it from a plain full-query address lookup, though it never names a sibling like geo_address_search explicitly.

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 Korean line '주소 입력 화면의 자동완성에 씁니다' gives a concrete usage context (autocomplete in address input screens), which implies when to use it. However, it offers no explicit when-not or alternative routing (e.g. use geo_address_search for complete queries), leaving the agent to infer.

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