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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that results are limited to regions with overlapping dataset kinds, but it does not disclose output format, ordering, or threshold behavior beyond what the schema already says.

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 English description is compact and front-loaded with the core meaning, and the Korean translation is helpful for the domain. It is slightly redundant because the Korean sentence repeats the English content, but the overall length is appropriate and every core idea earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it defines the resource, the filter criterion, and the intended first-step usage. It does not specify the exact return shape, but the absence of an output schema is less critical given the low complexity.

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%, and the single minAxes parameter is already documented as the minimum number of overlapping dataset kinds. The description's mention of 'several kinds of data overlap' loosely aligns with this parameter but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool's resource (Korean 시군구 districts) and its specific purpose: listing regions where multiple dataset kinds overlap. It also frames the tool as a first-check for answerable regions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_datasets or region_overview.

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 phrase 'Check here first to see which regions we can actually answer about' provides explicit usage context and tells the agent when to call this tool. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the placement cue is strong enough for a clear context.

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