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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important behaviors: the program only covers rural eup/myeon areas, metropolitan districts are absent, empty results expose a coverage field, and the tool uses public data without calling an LLM. It does not mention rate limits or exact return formatting, but the key operational caveats are covered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by examples, a critical coverage caveat, and a data-source note. The bilingual repetition makes it longer, but each sentence contributes necessary selection or invocation information.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually (contact points), how to handle empty results, and the data source. It could specify result fields (e.g., lawyer name/phone) but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by giving region examples, explaining the searchable administrative levels (시·도, 시·군·구, 읍·면), and clarifying that metropolitan districts are invalid search targets. The limit parameter is not elaborated, but the schema already defines it.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('마을변호사를 지역으로 찾습니다' / 'Find the village lawyer assigned to a Korean locality') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling legal-research tools by emphasizing locality-based lookup, free consultation contacts, and public-data/no-LLM behavior.

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 provides concrete search examples ('강원 강릉', '고성군', '완도'), explains the geographic scope, and instructs users to check the coverage field on empty results. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond the implied metropolitan-district exclusion.

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