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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing cost behavior (1 credit/call, cache hit 1), the normalization behavior, and the specific result fields returned. It does not describe pagination or ambiguous-match behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with cost, then states purpose, return fields, and examples in two efficient sentences. Every sentence earns its place, and the examples clarify keyword formats without adding bulk.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of explaining return values. It lists the key returned fields and gives a use case for lawd_code, but it does not describe the output shape, pagination behavior, or handling of no or multiple results. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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 low at 33%, and the description adds concrete keyword examples but does not explain page or per_page semantics. The pagination parameters have conventional names and defaults in the schema, so they are inferable, but the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clearly states a specific action ('search and normalize official address') and names the resource types (road-name, lot-number, building-name). It also enumerates concrete return fields (postal_code, adm_code, lawd_code, English address), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like search_corporation or search_law.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: resolving Korean address keywords into normalized official address data, including the lawd_code needed for apartment trade price lookup. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but no sibling is closely ambiguous enough to require that.

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