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

Annotations only cover read-only/idempotent/open-world; the description goes well beyond by disclosing auth behavior (caller's own X-DataGoKr-Key may be needed, keys are never returned or stored), failure semantics (ok=false means retry later), and hard limits (max 50 columns/20 rows; Seoul/Gyeonggi public paths max 5 rows without a key). This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the entry is bloated: every statement is repeated in Korean and English, and a long enumeration of return fields (columns, rows, total, truncated, source_note, page_url, access_guide) duplicates the output schema that already exists. Significant redundancy.

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?

Behaviorally rich for a complex multi-source preview tool, but it over-invests in return-value narration that the output schema already supplies while leaving both input parameters undocumented. Coverage is uneven rather than incomplete.

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 carries the full burden, yet it never explains `dataset_id` or the `n` row-count parameter by name. Row limits are mentioned incidentally (5/20 rows) but the link to `n` is never made explicit.

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: view the actual first rows of a public-data-portal dataset, split by STD_FILE/PORTAL_FILE types. Clear enough to distinguish from a full download or field listing, though it never names its siblings (download_url, fields, record, search, show) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Gives conditional routing hints ('OPEN_API→request_templates, LINK→url, STD 하위행→parent_id') and notes the key requirement for API fallback, which is useful. But it never says when to prefer get_preview over record/show/search, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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