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

Annotations only declare that this is a read-only, open-world call; the description adds two things the annotations do not: an explicit per-call cost ('[호출당 50포인트]', a rate/quota constraint) and the fact that change-rate and trend values are delivered in a dedicated analysis block. That cost disclosure is high-value for agent planning, but response shape and failure behavior remain undisclosed.

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?

The output capabilities are front-loaded, which is good, but the body is essentially the same content stated twice in English and Korean. The Korean sentence is not a clarifying expansion — it restates the same field list — so roughly half the text is duplicated rather than additive.

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?

For a 5-parameter, annotation-covered, output-schema-less tool, the description covers purpose, input precondition, analysis scope, and cost — enough for an agent to decide and invoke. Gaps are minor: no note on error handling when neither locator is provided, and no sense of response size or latency for a multi-source aggregation call.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not encode: an either/or requirement between pnu and address (the schema marks no fields required), and that the priceYears window feeds the change-rate/trend block. It still does not explain how year vs priceYears interact or what happens when both pnu and address are supplied.

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?

A specific verb ('Analyze') plus resource ('Korean parcel') with an enumeration of what is returned: characteristics, land-use plan, official land price history with change rates/CAGR, and regulation conflicts. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes the tool from price-oriented siblings such as land_rt_price, which overlap on the official land price portion.

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 description gives a hard input precondition ('pnu(19자리) 또는 address 중 하나가 필요'), which is genuine usage guidance since the schema declares zero required parameters. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives; an agent cannot tell from this text whether to call land_info or land_rt_price for a price-only lookup.

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