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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes beyond them: keys are never returned or stored, ok=false means the portal is temporarily unresponsive (retry later), and truncation is capped at 50 columns/20 rows. This is useful operational context for an agent deciding how to react to results.

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 key operational facts are reasonably front-loaded, but the content is duplicated in Korean and English ('ok=false: retry later. data means actual rows...' restates the Korean), and the return-field enumeration is long. It is serviceable but not tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return values, yet the key behavioral nuance (ok=false → retry, data present → real rows received) is genuinely additive. Combined with the source-type routing rules, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool, though input parameter meaning remains a 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 0% and neither parameter is described: dataset_id has no explanation of expected format, and n (default 5) is only indirectly implied by the '20 rows' truncation note without stating it controls row count or its cap. The description compensates with output-field semantics but leaves the two inputs essentially undocumented.

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 and resource ('실제 첫 행 보기' / preview the actual first rows) and adds source-type routing (STD_FILE·PORTAL_FILE, OPEN_API→request_templates, LINK→url, STD 하위행→parent_id). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names or contrasts itself with the sibling tools (download_url, fields, record, search, show), so differentiation relies on the reader inferring from the routing hints.

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 concrete when-to-use/when-key-is-needed conditions: files are previewed without a key, only attachments the portal cannot preview require X-DataGoKr-Key, and API/link/subset cases return guidance instead of rows. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or explicitly naming an alternative sibling to call instead.

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