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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds information the annotations do not carry: the output is an aggregation report (duplicate rate, district distribution) and each call costs 40 points. That billing disclosure is genuinely useful for agent planning; the lack of any note on batching or limits beyond the schema's 50 caps it at 4.

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?

Two short sentences plus a bracketed cost tag, with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The language mixes English and Korean, which is efficient for a bilingual audience but slightly reduces scanability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does list the main report contents (duplicate rate, district distribution, unmatched addresses). Combined with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the response shape (e.g. per-site grouping structure) remains implicit.

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% and all three parameters, including the enum for addrType, are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'unmatched addresses with alternatives', which loosely maps to includeSuggestions but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema already states. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: group an address list into real sites and report duplicate rate, district distribution, and unmatched addresses. This is concrete and distinguishable in substance from geo_standardize or geo_address_search. It does not name or exclude any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 sentence '여러 표기의 주소록을 지점 단위로 정리할 때 씁니다' gives implied usage: mixed-notation address books that need branch-level consolidation. However, it never names alternatives such as geo_address_quality or geo_standardize, nor any exclusions, so the agent must guess when this tool beats its neighbours.

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