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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral trust. It does state that it returns coordinates and uses a specific data source (TAGO), which implies read-only search, but it does not disclose pagination/limit behavior, maximum results, or error cases. For a simple query tool this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, dense sentence placing the verb and resource first, immediately clarifying the search method and return value. No filler or redundancy.

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 search tool, it is complete: the workflow (cityCode via korea_bus_cities, partial name, limit) is covered in the schema, and the description names the key return (coordinates). It leaves the exact output list shape unspecified, but the risk is low given the one-required-parameter 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?

All three parameters already have clear schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds only that search is by partial stop name and city-scoped, reinforcing rather than extending 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?

States a specific verb (검색한다), a concrete resource (한국 시내버스 정류소), scope (도시별), search method (정류소명 일부), and expected return (좌표). No ambiguity with sibling tools such as korea_bus_cities.

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?

The description implies clear usage context (city-scoped search, partial-name matching) and the schema references korea_bus_cities for cityCode lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-avoid guidance or named alternatives.

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