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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the call burns one sample ('맛보기') quota, which affects call budgeting. It does not describe pagination or volume limits, but for a single-record read that is minor.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the parameter pointer and the quota cost. No filler; slightly dense with parenthetical enumeration but every clause carries information.

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 burden of describing the return payload and does so by naming the specific sections returned plus a data-status field. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the sibling-routing guidance is missing.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented, including the from/to defaults and the category-over-nunchi_industry precedence. The description's only parameter note ('category 는 list_reports 의 categories 번호') restates what the schema already says, adding no new semantics.

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+resource ('업종 하나의 끝난 월 시장 기준선') and enumerates the returned components (top-5 platform share, time/day peaks, sample size, data status). It is clear what it does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as get_distribution, get_time_pattern, and get_totals that cover similar slices.

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?

Provides a useful routing hint by tying `category` to `list_reports` categories, and warns that the call consumes one sample quota. However, it never states when to prefer this bundled baseline over the more granular sibling tools, so the agent must infer the choice.

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