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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates an informational read-only behavior ('알려준다'), with no hints of side effects or destructive actions. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-mutating or safe behavior, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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?

The description provides core functionality but omits details on return format, required parameter combinations, or any constraints (e.g., date format, limit bounds). Given no output schema, this lack of context reduces completeness for an agent seeking to invoke the tool correctly.

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 low (only 'place' has a description, 33%). The main description does not explain 'date' or 'limit', leaving their purpose and format unclear. The description compensates partially for 'place' with an example but fails to clarify the other parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool provides sea parting index times and judgments for specific locations, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on beach, fishing, mudflat, scuba, and surfing indexes. The verb '알려준다' (informs) is specific and resource-oriented.

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 usage for sea parting information (e.g., Jindo and Jebudo) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or provide any usage conditions. It relies on domain inference rather than explicit guidance.

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