number_to_korean

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core transformation and one example, but it does not explain the effect of the optional `won` flag, handling of negatives or large numbers, or that the operation is a pure non-mutating conversion.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with an example; no redundant or filler content.

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 pure conversion with an output schema, the core operation is covered, but the optional `won` parameter's behavior is not explained and there are no annotations to fill the gap, so the definition is only minimally complete.

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 0%. The description demonstrates the required `n` parameter through an example, but it says nothing about the optional `won` boolean or how it changes the output (e.g., whether 원 is omitted), leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 and resource in Korean ('정수를 ... 바꿉니다') and supplies a concrete input/output example, so the agent can identify the operation immediately. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no sibling differentiation is needed.

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?

Provides no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The implied use case is any integer-to-Korean-amount conversion, but the description does not say how to choose this tool over another approach.

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