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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds value the annotations do not carry — '[auth] 읽기 · 인증 불필요' (no authentication needed) and an explicit output shape with provenance. It does not mention data freshness or latency, which matters for a trend tool, but that gap is small.

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?

Scope statement is front-loaded and the [auth]/[output] tags are compact and scannable. The full Korean-English duplication doubles the length for identical content, which is defensible for language coverage but not free.

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, the description supplies the return shape and provenance, plus auth requirements and geographic scope — enough to call the tool correctly. The remaining gap is parameter meaning, though all three params are optional with defaults, lowering the risk of a wrong call.

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% and the description never explains lang, limit, or region. The only hint is the sigungu-level scope, which loosely implies region granularity; lang and limit remain completely undefined in both the schema and the description.

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 ('returns Korean districts where visits are rising') and pins the scope with '전국 시군구 단위(서울 외 지역 포함)' / 'not limited to Seoul', which implicitly contrasts with a Seoul-limited sibling. It stops short of naming the sibling tool, so differentiation is by scope alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase '요즘 방문이 늘고 있는' (rising visits), which tells an agent this is the trend-oriented tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or reference to gaja_recommend_places or gaja_get_foreign_surge, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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