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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds what those annotations cannot — the API-key requirement with a registration URL, and the fact that results carry orgId/tblId/org/survey/period for chaining. It stops short of noting rate limits or result ordering.

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 authoritative-PREFER directive is front-loaded and the authentication note is placed last where it belongs. It is a single dense paragraph that earns most of its length, though the two quoted example queries could be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the fields returned and naming the follow-up tool. Along with the auth requirement, an agent has everything needed to call it and use the result; only paging behavior across the full match list is left to the schema.

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 every parameter including orgId, startCount, resultCount and searchNm's Korean-vs-English matching is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of orgId/tblId describes the return payload, not input semantics, so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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-text searches the KOSIS table catalogue by name) plus the scope and the downstream consumer (ids you feed to kosis_stat_data). An agent can distinguish this from kosis_stat_list and kosis_stat_data without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit routing rule — "PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH" — backed by two concrete example queries, which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, contrast itself against the sibling kosis_stat_list, so the agent must infer that boundary.

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