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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derived behavior: a per-call cost of 40 points, a hard 50-address batch cap, and default deduplication. These are operationally useful facts an agent cannot get from the schema or 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?

Front-loads the core action, then context, then cost, with each sentence earning its place. The bilingual English/Korean pairing is somewhat redundant, but it serves the provider's audience and does not bury the key 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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by describing the return shape (coordinates, lot number, administrative code) plus a success/failure summary. Combined with full schema coverage and disclosed cost/limits, an agent has nearly everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 addresses, dedupe, and addrType. The description restates the 50-item limit and deduplication, which overlaps the schema's own text, and adds no syntax or format detail for addrType. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 and resource (geocode a list of Korean addresses) and adds scope details: batch up to 50, deduplication, and a return of coordinates/lot numbers/admin codes with success-failure summary. The 'list at once' framing implicitly separates it from single-address geo siblings, but it never names an explicit counterpart tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 Korean clause '엑셀·DB에 쌓인 주소를 한 번에 정리할 때 씁니다' gives a clear use context (bulk cleanup of accumulated addresses). However, there are no exclusions or named alternatives to route an agent between this and single-address tools such as geo_address_search or geo_standardize.

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