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

Annotation hints (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) set a low bar, and the description clears it by disclosing that road-name and jibun results are merged with duplicate removal, plus an explicit cost of 20 points per call — a rate limit/cost trait not captured by annotations.

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 cost disclosure is well-placed, but the entire content is duplicated verbatim in Korean and English, doubling length without adding information. The bilingual repetition is a structural inefficiency.

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 by naming the returned fields (standardized address, parcel number, region code, coordinates), and it adds cost and dedup behavior. Pagination is covered by the schema, so remaining gaps are minor.

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 query, page, size, and the category enum (auto/road/parcel). The description adds no parameter-level detail such as query syntax or how category interacts with the merge behavior, 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Korean road-name/jibun addresses) plus the return content (standardized text, parcel number, region code, coordinates). However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like geo_address_autocomplete, geo_standardize, geo_place_search, or search_juso, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. With so many near-identical geo_* and address-search siblings, the absence of any selection guidance is a real gap.

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