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 genuinely new context: the per-call cost ([호출당 10포인트]), the internal mechanism (each address is geocoded to coordinates), and the shape of the result (same parcel/building verdict with distance and similarity).

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 decision in the first clause and adds only the use case and cost afterward. The English/Korean duplication is mild redundancy but serves a bilingual audience; no sentence is wasted.

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 compensates by stating the return content (same-parcel/same-building verdict, distance, similarity) and disclosing the point cost. A read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations needs little more.

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 three parameters including the addrType enum are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description mentions converting '두 주소' to coordinates but adds no format, syntax, or addrType guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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: decides whether two Korean addresses refer to the same parcel or building, and returns distance plus text similarity. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like geo_address_search or geo_standardize, which normalize or look up rather than compare a pair.

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?

Gives a use case ('고객·거래처 주소 중복 정리에 씁니다' – deduplicating customer/vendor addresses), which implies when to reach for it. However, it names no alternative tool (e.g., geo_standardize for normalization) and states no exclusions or prerequisites, so routing versus siblings is left to inference.

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