Living population by administrative dong

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key trait: the data is de-facto (living) and not real-time, implying a delay. However, it does not mention return format, authentication, rate limits, or pagination, leaving some transparency gaps. The non-real-time distinction is valuable but not exhaustive.

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 succinct sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second (Korean) provides a crucial usage exclusion. No filler, front-loaded, and perfectly sized for an agent to scan quickly.

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?

The tool has four optional parameters and no output schema, and the description provides enough context for selection: what data it returns, the key non-real-time caveat, and the sibling alternative. Minor omissions—behavior when no parameters are supplied or what the response looks like—prevent a perfect score, but overall it is well contextualized.

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%—each parameter already has a description (e.g., date format, timeSlot pattern, dongCode usage). The description mentions 'by administrative dong and hour' which maps to dongCode and timeSlot, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the resource: de-facto (living) population estimates by administrative dong and hour. It clearly distinguishes from sibling get_population by explicitly stating this is not real-time, making its scope unambiguous.

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 description provides an explicit exclusion and alternative: '실시간 아님 — 실시간 혼잡은 get_population 사용' (not real-time, use get_population for real-time congestion). This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over the sibling tool.

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