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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful cost trait ([호출당 20포인트]) and enumerates return fields, but says nothing about rate limits, accuracy behavior for ambiguous addresses, or error cases when neither address nor coordinates resolve.

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 core English sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the content is then repeated verbatim in Korean and followed by an annotation sentence, roughly doubling the length. The point-cost note is relevant, but the duplication costs space without adding distinct information.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (sido/sigungu/eupmyeondong/admin dong/lawdCd), which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret the response. It is less complete on input precedence (address vs. coordinates vs. point) and on how addrType affects results.

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 six parameters (x, y, point, address, addrType, includeZipcode) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the address-or-coordinates duality and adds no syntax or precedence guidance beyond that.

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 (extract) plus the exact resource (administrative names and codes: sido, sigungu, eupmyeondong, admin dong, lawdCd) and the two input forms (address or coordinates). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never explicitly positions itself against close siblings like geo_reverse, geo_standardize, or geo_neighborhood.

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 only usage signal is that lawdCd is the code used for 실거래가 (real transaction price) lookups, plus a per-call point cost. There is no statement of when to choose this tool over geo_reverse/geo_standardize/search_juso, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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