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

The description says 'Look up' implying a read-only operation, but the annotation readOnlyHint is false, indicating the tool may have side effects. This is a direct contradiction. The description does add useful behavioral context about empty match semantics and operational requirements, but the contradiction forces a score of 1 per the rules.

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 dense but well-structured: the primary purpose is stated first, followed by essential clarifications about upstream behavior, result interpretation, ingest prerequisites, and environment requirements. Every sentence adds value, though the density of operational details might overwhelm an agent without a clear need for all of them upfront.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably thorough: it covers the data source, the local index mechanism, result interpretation, ingest approval, service key requirements, and environment variable. The only gap is the absence of a return format description, but since no output schema exists, the description could reasonably include field names. Overall, it's nearly complete for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single bizno parameter, already explaining it is a 10-digit business registration number matched against brno. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'by bizno/brno' and upstream limitations, but adds no new syntactic or semantic details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 looks up workplace waste administrative disposition rows from a local batch M1 index by bizno/brno, specifying the data source ID (data.go.kr 15156661). It distinguishes itself from siblings like opendata__g2b__sanction and opendata__kiscon__sanction by emphasizing it uses the local index and never calls live APIs, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides context on when to use this tool: it retrieves from the local batch index rather than live services, and notes that upstream getlist only accepts bzentyNm/admdspYmd, not brno. It also warns that empty matches mean no non-expired index row, not a certified clean claim. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, it clearly signals this is the batch/lookup variant, not the live API tool.

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