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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the matching semantics — missing conditions are UNRESTRICTED rather than excluded — plus the explicit caveat that results are candidates and final entitlement rests with the administering agency. It does not describe pagination behaviour or the shape/size of a result set beyond 'candidate list'.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose before the filtering detail and the warning, and no sentence is wasted. The trailing Korean sentence restates the same two points already made in English, which is mildly redundant but serves a bilingual audience.

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 7 optional parameters, no output schema and no required inputs, the description covers the crucial behavioural facts (open-ended condition matching, non-authoritative results) that an agent needs before calling. It stops short of describing what a returned record contains, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter, including how to omit age and income. The description reinforces the omit-to-broaden rule and characterises traits as life stage/occupation/school/health, but adds little syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 ('Find') and resource ('Korean government benefit programmes') with an explicit scope: filtering the 10,956-record Bojogeum24 registry by age, income, household and traits. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like benefits_detail (single record) and benefits_codebook (enum reference).

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 real usage guidance: omit conditions you are unsure about, because unstated conditions are treated as UNRESTRICTED and guessing drops matches ('the fewer conditions you give, the more results you get'). However it never names an alternative tool or states when a sibling such as benefits_detail should be used instead.

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