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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds two useful behavioral facts: auto-simplification when vertices exceed 3000 and a cost of 20 points per call. It does not describe error behavior or authentication requirements, but the added rate and auto-processing details are meaningful.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the English sentence is immediately followed by a Korean translation that repeats the same information, wasting tokens. The cost note is useful and placed at the end, but the bilingual duplication weakens overall conciseness.

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 burden of describing return values, and it does list the computed outputs (area, perimeter, centroid, bounding box) and the simplified GeoJSON. Annotations cover safety and openness, and the schema documents all parameters, so only minor details like output units or error handling are missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning for the simplify parameter by explaining the automatic simplification threshold and framing includeGeometry as an optional simplified GeoJSON return. It also implicitly maps the Korean province/city/county/township terminology to the level enum.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: look up an administrative district boundary and compute area, perimeter, centroid, and bounding box. It distinguishes itself from generic GeoJSON tools by naming the administrative-district domain, and from measurement tools by listing the exact geometry metrics it returns.

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 purpose strongly implies when the tool is useful—when boundary geometry and derived metrics are needed—but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative sibling guidance. An agent can infer usage from the specific resource, but there is no direct routing advice.

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