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 meaningful context beyond that: a 40-point cost per call, a 0-point outcome when no results are returned, and the downstream handoff — all of which help an agent reason about cost and follow-up.

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 in the first sentence, followed by workflow and cost notes. The Korean text largely mirrors the English rather than adding new information, which is mildly redundant but still efficient and audience-appropriate.

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 partially by naming the 'index' field of result targets that feeds the jobs_create tool. Cost behavior is also disclosed, leaving only result shape details (e.g., other fields) unspecified.

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 single 'query' parameter is already fully documented as address or 14-digit property number. The description restates the same format without adding syntax, normalization, or validation detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (real estate registry targets) with scope (Korea) and accepted inputs (road/lot address or 14-digit property number). This distinguishes it from the registry_corporate_search sibling, which targets corporate registries instead.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward: 'pass the index of the resulting targets to registry_realestate_jobs_create', establishing this as the search step in a two-tool pipeline. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over the corporate variant or what inputs would be rejected.

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