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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), and the description goes well beyond them: it names the data source, discloses what fields exist and do NOT exist (상호·업종·행정동 only, no performance or contact data), states the sort order is by name and explicitly not by rating, and explains the registered_card URL attachment behavior.

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 and dataset provenance are front-loaded, and each sentence carries routing, scope, or behavior information. It is denser than ideal (four-plus clauses in one block) but nothing is padding.

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 4-param read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers what is returned, what is missing, ordering, and the sibling alternative. The only loose end is the 'limit' parameter's behavior, which is left to the schema defaults.

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 coverage is 75%; work and region already carry examples in the schema, and the description largely restates those categories rather than adding syntax or format detail. The undocumented 'limit' parameter (default 20, max 50) is not explained in either place, and no new meaning is added over the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (finding neighborhood shops registered in the small-business commercial-information public dataset) filtered by 시·군·구·동, and explicitly scopes the category set (signboards, advertising, printing, copying). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search_vendors and the registered_card linkage, so an agent can tell it apart from find_businesses/find_public_bids without opening a schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use trigger ('개인·소규모 일… 맡길 곳을 물을 때 쓰세요') and an explicit when-not with an alternative ('조달 실적이 있는 업체는 search_vendors를 쓰세요'). Routing between siblings is fully specified.

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