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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the paid nature of the call ('$0.005 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base') and the upstream data source, which are material facts an agent needs before invoking. It stops short of describing rate limits, latency, or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and outputs, then input acceptance, then price. Dense and largely waste-free, though piling the API provenance and cost into the same long sentence slightly dilutes scanability.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields (official forms, postal code, English address, building codes). Input shape and cost are covered; the only real gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter and any pagination/truncation behavior.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It explains what 'q' accepts (partial road+number or district+building, in Korean), which is genuinely additive, but it says nothing about the 'limit' string parameter or its format/default. Compensation is therefore only partial.

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 (normalise) and resource (Korean address) and enumerates the exact outputs: road-name and lot-number forms, 5-digit postal code, English address, building name/codes. It also names the upstream source (Ministry of the Interior road-name address API), which cleanly separates it from siblings like kr_name_romanize or kr_entity_resolve.

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?

It gives useful input guidance ('Accepts partial Korean addresses (road plus number, or district plus building)'), which hints at when the tool applies. However, it never states when to prefer it over kr_name_romanize, kr_entity_resolve, or kr_apartment_query, and provides no exclusions or limits on input scope.

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