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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral pitfall (mixing categories double-counts), which is valuable. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what the returned values look like (units, whether zero-movement categories appear), leaving real gaps.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the constraint and format. Nothing is padded, though the format note could sit more naturally next to the week concept rather than trailing the warnings.

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 and no annotations, the description has to do a lot, and it covers purpose, the category constraint, and the week format adequately. It leaves direction unexplained and gives no sense of the return shape, which is a meaningful gap for a three-required-parameter 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the week format precisely and mirrors the category enum with an explicit one-at-a-time rule. The direction parameter (유입/유출) is never mentioned, so one of three required parameters has no semantic explanation beyond the enum labels.

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: returns national movement volume for a given week, broken down by one dimension. The four allowed dimensions are enumerated, so an agent knows exactly what kind of result to expect. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_movement, keeping it short of a 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?

Gives one real usage constraint — use only one category per call, and summing across categories double-counts. That is useful guidance but there is no routing advice about when to prefer this over get_movement or the analysis siblings; usage is implied rather than fully framed.

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