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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds value beyond them: alternatives are only produced for addresses that fail, capped at a maximum of 3 candidates, and each call is billed at 30 points. These behavioral details (failure handling, result cap, cost) are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose and kept short, with the cost note bracketed at the end. The English and Korean sentences largely restate each other, which is mild redundancy, but no sentence is wasted.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does: per-address scores, grades, and up to 3 alternative candidates for failures. For a 2-parameter read-only tool this is reasonably complete, though addrType's behavioral effect (auto/parcel/road) is left to 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (addrType enum and the addresses array) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion of a "list" of Korean addresses and does not elaborate on addrType, so 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?

Uses specific verbs (score, grade, suggest alternatives) against a specific resource (Korean addresses) with an explicit scope (validity and completeness). It is clearly an address-diagnosis tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like geo_standardize or geo_address_search, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

"고객 주소 데이터 정제에 씁니다" (used for cleaning customer address data) gives an implied usage context but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no naming of alternative tools such as geo_standardize or geo_address_autocomplete.

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