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

Annotations already establish a safe, read-only, idempotent profile, so the description's job is to add traits beyond that — and it does: it flags the tool as [유료] (cost-bearing) and discloses that the response carries a disclaimer field the agent must relay. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured annotations. It stops short of describing output shape or limits, so not 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and axes, then a single operational instruction. Two short sentences with no filler; the only minor cost is that the paid/disclaimer notes are interleaved with purpose rather than separated.

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 tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is computed (three axes), that the result is a score, and an important response-side obligation (disclaimer). What is missing is any hint at the return structure or how scores should be interpreted, which matters slightly more given the absence of an output schema.

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% with a single well-described 'region' parameter (시군구명 예: 강남구), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., accepted granularity or edge cases) beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 names a specific verb (점수화한다 / scores) and resource (지역 투자 위험도 / regional investment risk) and even enumerates the scoring axes (변동성·유동성·공급압력 / volatility, liquidity, supply pressure). This is clear on its own, but it does nothing to distinguish itself from plausible siblings like realty_market_signals, realty_supply_demand_balance, or realty_location_scores, so it stays below 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many adjacent risk/market tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance provided is a post-call instruction about relaying a disclaimer, which is not usage guidance for selecting the tool. The [유료] marker signals cost but not applicability.

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