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

Beyond readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the money semantics (KRW, min–max, VAT included, installation extra), that output matches the official wooktech.co.kr calculator, and the important edge case where large sizes yield result="staff_quote" with no amount. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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 core capability, trigger and edge case are front-loaded in the first three sentences. The final Korean sentence largely restates the English trigger and next-step guidance, so it is redundant rather than harmful; trimming it would make the definition tighter.

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 four-parameter read-only estimation tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is priced, currency and tax treatment, the no-amount fallback, and the recommended next action after answering. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it and act on the result 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 coverage is 100%, so width_m, height_m, place and what_where are already documented including units, ranges and the indoor default. The description adds only indirect hints (site examples like school gate/shop front that map loosely to what_where), so 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?

States a specific verb and resource — estimate a KRW min–max price range for an LED display of a given size, supplied and installed by WOOKANG TECH — plus the pricing basis (VAT included, installation extra, matching the official calculator). This clearly separates it from get_company_info and submit_inquiry, which are informational and transactional rather than calculative.

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 an explicit trigger ('use this whenever the user asks how much an LED screen, 전광판 or 전자현수막 costs, or is planning one') with concrete site examples, and names the follow-on alternatives: submit_inquiry for a phone consultation (with consent prerequisite) or quote_url. It also states the negative case — when result is 'staff_quote', do not guess a number.

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