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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only query operation ('조회합니다') and discloses the filter behavior for empty strings as nationwide. It does not discuss potential errors, rate limits, or data freshness, but for a simple lookup these are not critical 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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses a clean Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema-only details.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the parameter, default behavior, and return contents. It could slightly improve by noting that the returned codes are intended for use with other market-price tools, but nothing essential is missing for calling it correctly.

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?

The schema provides only a title and default for 'region', so schema description coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining the meaning of the parameter, providing concrete examples ('대전', '서울', '부산'), and specifying the behavior of an empty string as nationwide.

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 states a specific verb ('조회합니다' / retrieves) and a clear resource: the nationwide public wholesale market list and major category codes. This naturally distinguishes it from price- and auction-focused siblings such as get_realtime_auction and compare_market_prices.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention using market codes as a prerequisite for price tools. The role is implied by the return value ('도매시장 코드 목록 및 부류 코드 목록'), but there is no explicit routing or exclusion guidance.

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