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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint — results are limited to licensed, currently-operating establishments sourced from public data — which excludes closed/unlicensed venues. However, it says nothing about result limits, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the resource and scope, with no filler. The Korean and English lines are near-duplicates, which is defensible for a bilingual audience but is still mild redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what comes back — and it does: a list of licensed, operating PC bangs filtered by region or name. With four optional, mostly self-documenting parameters and full annotation coverage, an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 75% and the schema itself documents query, region, and district with bilingual hints. The description only echoes 'region or name,' leaving district and the limit cap (max 20) unexplained beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb (search/find) and a precise resource (currently-operating, licensed PC bangs in Korea from public data), scoped by region or name. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like search_battle_zones or search_tournaments because the domain entity is explicit, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by region or name,' so an agent can infer the intended lookup pattern, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement about which sibling to prefer for related queries. Minimum-viable routing context only.

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