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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description instead adds content semantics (full includes the entire guide, summary does not) and a negative scope statement that prevents misreading it as a data/price tool. It does not describe response size or pagination, which for a 'full' payload would be useful.

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 recommended first action (view:summary) is front-loaded and every sentence carries an instruction or constraint. The mid-sentence chains (e.g. the dataRoutes list) are slightly dense, but there is no filler.

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 explains what comes back and what does not; with annotations covering safety, the remaining burden is small. The only real gap is the undocumented id parameter and how to obtain it, which is minor for a lookup tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters. It explains view well (summary vs full, full is default), but the required id parameter is never mentioned — no hint that it comes from list_research_packs or what it identifies. Partial compensation, so baseline 3.

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 the concrete deliverable — research order (조사 순서), comparison criteria (비교 기준), and original sources (원출처) — and explicitly routes to get_site_guide, which separates it from that sibling. The verb (제공합니다 / 'provides') is generic and the notion of a 'research pack' stays abstract, so it stops short of a fully self-explanatory 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?

It prescribes a workflow: start with view:summary, inspect sources' dataRoutes for table address/unit/base-date/access conditions, then expand only the needed guide via get_site_guide. It also states an explicit boundary — this is not actual prices or finished analysis — so the agent knows when this tool is insufficient.

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