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 genuinely useful context beyond the schema and annotations: a per-call cost of 40 points and the nature of the response (nearest lists plus average distance). It does not, however, disclose pagination or exact response shape.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are dense with useful specifics. The English and Korean versions largely duplicate each other, which is reasonable for a bilingual audience but slightly inflates length.

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 so adequately by naming nearest lists and average distance. Combined with the 100% schema coverage and readOnly annotation, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though exclusions versus other geo tools remain unaddressed.

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 seven parameters (x, y, point, address, radius, limit, categories) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the category set and radius concept but adds no syntax or default detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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: analyzing daily-life facilities (convenience stores, subway stations, schools, hospitals, pharmacies) around an address or coordinate by category, returning nearest lists and average distance within a radius. This is far more specific than neighboring geo_* tools like geo_measure or geo_district_boundary, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

It offers one use context ('상권·입지 분석에 씁니다' / used for commercial-district and location analysis), which implies when it is appropriate. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance, despite a crowded geo_* sibling family (geo_place_search, geo_measure, geo_reverse) where routing guidance would be valuable.

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