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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds a cost per call ([호출당 100포인트]) and the scope constraint that subdomains are not tracked. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not describe the return format or pagination.

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 primary action, but the Korean sentence largely duplicates the English version. The scope note and cost are valuable, but the redundancy could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and cost, which is sufficient for basic invocation. It does not detail the response format, but with no output schema and low complexity, this is a minor 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?

The schema covers the only parameter 'domain' with an example, and the description adds the semantic constraint that the domain should be a top-level domain (최상위 도메인 기준), which is not present in the schema's own description. This helps the agent provide valid inputs.

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 clearly states the tool does a lookup of historical IP address changes for a domain. It further specifies that it operates on top-level domains and excludes subdomains, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like nslookup (current DNS) and whois (registration data).

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 description provides clear context for use: it is for historical IP changes and is scoped to top-level domains, explicitly noting subdomains are not tracked. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for current IP lookups, so it stops short of a full when/not-when guide.

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