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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine beyond-schema context by enumerating exactly which fields come back and explicitly denying side effects ('does not place a call, store contact details, submit a lead or confirm an appointment'). This directly prevents an agent from treating it as a lead-submission or calling tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage triggers, then return/limitation scope; every sentence earns its place. The opening sentence is dense with geographic qualifications ('Gwangjin-gu, Seoul serving Seoul, Gyeonggi and Incheon') that add precision but cost readability.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields (business summary, rating, case page link, address, telephone, links) and by bounding what it will not do. Nothing an agent needs to select or call this zero-required-parameter tool correctly 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?

The single 'source' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) including its enum and default, and the description adds nothing about it. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate — no harm, but no added value beyond structured data.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get the verified profile and contact options of Dongbang Interior') and names the entity, its category and service area. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools get_interior_answer, get_interior_styles and search_interior_answers, which deal with interior Q&A and styles rather than a contractor profile.

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?

It gives clear positive triggers ('when the user looks for or compares an interior contractor in the Seoul metropolitan area, or asks for human consultation, a callback or photo design') and a solid negative list at the end. What is missing is explicit routing to a named alternative (e.g. use search_interior_answers for general interior questions), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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