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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, openWorld; the description adds that it returns raw rows and is a generic passthrough. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth requirements, but the scoping and raw-return context are useful beyond the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences; the generic nature and when-to-use are front-loaded, followed by concrete examples and a browse link. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and full schema descriptions, the description covers enough for an agent to call it: what it does, when, and how to supply the service name. It doesn't describe the raw row output format, pagination limits beyond the default, or error behavior for unknown services, but these are minor and largely schema-handled.

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 100% and documents all three parameters including defaults and sample-key row cap, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. Its examples confirm the service name format but add no syntax beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: a generic passthrough to ANY Seoul Open Data Plaza service by service name, returning raw rows. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like seoul_air_quality and seoul_real_estate as the catch-all for datasets those named tools don't cover.

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 clearly states when to use it: when a specific Seoul dataset is needed that the named tools don't cover, and even provides example service names. This gives explicit routing guidance relative to the named siblings.

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