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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds meaningful traits: data provenance (NHIS-published), a yearly refresh cadence implying staleness, and the rule that suspended institutions are reported as absent rather than erroring. It omits nothing critical but does not discuss pagination or error responses.

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 return fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by data-freshness and missing-value rules, with no filler. The bilingual duplication is purposeful for the audience, though it roughly doubles the length.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the fields returned. Combined with the missing-value and freshness disclosures, an agent has enough to call it correctly, with only the hand-off to search_institutions left unstated.

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 100% and the single 'key' parameter already documents its format, pattern and source path (/c/<키>). The description only restates that lookup is by 기관 키, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for schema-documented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('기관 키로 한 곳의 ... 돌려줍니다') and enumerates the returned fields (등급·평가연도·주소·인력·정원·등급 이력), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. The '한 곳' (single record) framing implicitly separates it from search_institutions/compare_institutions, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives real operational guidance — suspended institutions answer as absent, and missing values must not be guessed but routed to the url or contact page. However, it never states when to choose this tool over its close sibling search_institutions (e.g. when the key is unknown), leaving the routing to inference.

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