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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds substantive context the annotations cannot: provenance (BOIM from Public Procurement Service open data), a refresh date, and 'stated data limits' that warn about coverage boundaries. It stops short of describing response shape or error behavior.

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 purpose and id source in the first clause, then the field inventory. It is a single long sentence with a dense enumeration, but with no output schema that enumeration earns its place; minor deduction for density rather than length.

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, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so item by item (delivery records, KONEPS items, agencies, unit-price ranges, certifications, refresh date, limits). What is missing is the actual response structure and any handling for an unknown id.

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% and the single parameter is documented there, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the missing semantic layer — that the id is not arbitrary but must be a vendor id sourced from korea_search_vendors — which meaningfully reduces misuse risk.

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 ('Full vendor card for one ... supplier') and immediately ties it to the sibling that produces the id ('korea_search_vendors'), so an agent can distinguish lookup-by-id from search without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly establishes the prerequisite workflow: the id must come from korea_search_vendors, which implies search-then-detail. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use it, keeping it just short of a 5.

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