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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and world scope are covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – nothing about result set size, ordering, or how the partner/closed dataset is scoped, and it largely restates the title in two languages.

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 two short sentences with no filler and the core resource is front-loaded. The bilingual duplication adds a little redundancy but no real bloat.

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 search/listing tool with no output schema, the description omits anything an agent would want: what the results contain, how region/query interact, what the limit cap means, and how this differs from search_pc_bangs. With three parameters and partial schema coverage, it should do considerably more.

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 only 67% and the 'limit' parameter (default 10, max 20) carries no description anywhere, so the description would need to compensate. It contributes zero parameter information, leaving the cap and default semantics undocumented in prose.

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 gives a clear verb ('찾습니다' / Search) and a specific resource ('게임배틀 제휴 PC방 · 게임 매장(배틀존)'), so an agent knows this returns affiliated venue listings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling search_pc_bangs, which sounds like it covers overlapping territory.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the closely named sibling search_pc_bangs, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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