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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already provided by annotations, the description goes beyond them by disclosing pagination (10 per page), the total_count response field, and the 2-point cost per call. It does not contradict the annotations and adds useful operational detail.

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 description is short and front-loaded, with the main action in the first sentence and supporting details (keyword types, pagination, cost) following. It is concise, though the English and Korean opening lines repeat the core concept.

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?

For a simple read-only search tool, the description covers invocation essentials: keyword, pagination, total count, and cost. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the structure of returned address items or handle no-result or edge-case behavior, leaving a noticeable gap.

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 defines juso and page, including the default page value and 10-per-page behavior. The description adds total_count context but does not materially expand parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific action—'Search Korean road-name addresses by keyword'—and clearly identifies the resource as road-name addresses, which helps distinguish it from generic address or land-price tools in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied: the tool is for looking up Korean road-name addresses by keyword, and pagination behavior is described. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or guidance for choosing among related siblings such as location or land_rt_price.

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