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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive with openWorldHint=false, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the data is NHIS-published and refreshed yearly, and missing values must not be guessed but routed to the url or contact page. It does not describe return layout or ordering, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Short and largely front-loaded, with the comparison behavior leading. The bilingual duplication is justified for translation, though the English half drops the core purpose sentence and only carries the data-provenance/error guidance, which weakens the structure slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description does address what comes back ('same fields side by side'), plus data provenance, update cadence, and missing-value handling, and annotations cover the safety profile. An agent has enough to call it correctly, with only minor gaps around result ordering.

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% with a single 'keys' parameter already documented as '비교할 기관 키 2~3개 / 2–3 keys', including min/max items. The description adds nothing about key format or eligibility, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"같은 필드를 나란히 돌려줍니다" (returns the same fields side by side) combined with the title makes the comparison verb and resource explicit, and it is distinguishable from single-institution siblings like get_institution. It stops short of naming the sibling it replaces, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 gives a real conditional instruction — do not let users compare grades across different benefit types — but this is post-processing/presentation advice, not when-to-call guidance. It never states when to prefer this tool over get_institution or search_institutions, so usage is only implied.

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