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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's main added value is the cost disclosure '[호출당 50포인트]' (50 points per call), which is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot convey. It also sketches what the response contains (components and grade). It does not mention latency, batching, or whether calls are deterministic, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences in a deliberate order: what it produces, what feeds the score, when to use it, then cost. No filler, and the cost caveat is placed last without burying the core purpose.

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 still tells the agent the return is a 0-100 score plus components and grade, which is adequate. Seven parameters are fully covered by the schema, and the address/coordinate duality is stated. Minor gap: it does not say whether the score is comparable across calls or how grade thresholds work.

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 every parameter (x/y/point/address/radius/categories/limit) is already documented in Korean. The description only restates that you pass an address or coordinate and does not add defaults, interactions, or the address-vs-coordinate precedence rule beyond the schema. 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+resource (score an address or coordinate for site selection) and enumerates the exact inputs to the formula (daily-infrastructure accessibility, category diversity, address confidence) plus the output shape (0-100 score with components and grade). No sibling in the geo_* family produces a composite score, so differentiation is implicit but unambiguous.

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 sentence '후보지 여러 곳을 같은 기준으로 비교할 때 씁니다' gives a clear usage condition: comparing multiple candidate sites on a consistent basis. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. geo_place_search, geo_neighborhood) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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