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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description usefully adds that the call costs 30 points (a cost/quota trait annotations do not expose) and that the PNU path deliberately skips coordinate resolution. It still omits failure behavior for unparseable or ambiguous addresses, but the added operational context is real value.

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-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds the PNU branch and cost tag compactly. The English/Korean bilingual restatement of the same content is mildly redundant for an agent, but overall the definition is tight and well ordered.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (standard text, codes, coordinates, postal code). Combined with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only ambiguous-address and error semantics are missing.

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 the schema already documents pnu, address, addrType and includeZipcode in detail — including the 'pnu or address, one required' rule. The description largely restates the PNU branch the schema already spells out, adding no syntax, defaults or interaction detail beyond it, which lands at the baseline.

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 (normalize) and resource (Korean jibun/road address) and enumerates the exact outputs it produces — standard text, legal/administrative codes, coordinates and postal code — which separates it from single-purpose siblings like geo_admin_code or geo_reverse. It signals it is the bundled 'one response' tool, but never names which sibling to prefer, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Offers one concrete usage branch: supply a 19-digit parcel number instead of an address and you get codes without a coordinate lookup. However, there is no when-to-use versus geo_address_search, geo_address_quality or geo_admin_code, and no statement of when this tool is the wrong choice. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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