get_car_floodingCheck whether a Korean vehicle has a flood damage record, by VIN or license plate number. 차대번호(VIN) 또는 차량번호로 자동차의 침수 이력 여부를 조회합니다. 중고차 구매 전 확인 등에 사용합니다. [호출당 10포인트]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | 조회 종류. 1: 차대번호(VIN), 2: 차량번호 | |
| value | Yes | 차대번호(type=1, 17자리) 또는 차량번호(type=2) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing the per-call cost ('[호출당 10포인트]') and the query scope (Korean vehicles by VIN/plate). This goes beyond the annotation-provided safety profile, though it doesn't describe return format or error handling.
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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes both English and Korean versions, which is redundant but intentional for audience coverage. The sentence about used-car purchase and the cost note are useful. It's efficient without unnecessary fluff, only slightly padded by the bilingual duplication.
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 2-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, usage, vehicle scope, and cost. No output schema exists, but the boolean nature ('whether...has a flood damage record') is implied. It doesn't mention limitations like database coverage, but the given information is sufficient for most agent invocation scenarios.
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 schema description coverage is 100%—both 'type' and 'value' are documented with details (e.g., type 1 is VIN, type 2 is license plate). The description merely summarizes this ('by VIN or license plate number') without adding new semantics, so 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Check whether a Korean vehicle has a flood damage record, by VIN or license plate number.' This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_car_scrap (scrap vehicle info) and check_pccc (accident history) by targeting flood damage specifically.
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 a clear use case: '중고차 구매 전 확인 등에 사용합니다' (used for checking before purchasing a used car). This gives context on when to use the tool, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, but there is potential overlap between biz_detail and venture_biz_info, and the PCCC tools (req_pccc, get_pccc, check_pccc) require careful reading. Descriptions are clear enough to avoid major misselection.
Tool names mix verb-led patterns (check_*, get_*, req_*, search_*) with noun-phrase patterns (biz_detail, holiday_info, land_rt_price, parcel_tracking). This inconsistency makes it less predictable than a uniform verb_noun scheme, though names remain readable.
With 16 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the broad scope of the API—spanning business info, personal validation, car history, parcel tracking, and address search—justifies the count. No tool feels redundant.
The API covers its core verification workflows, but notable gaps exist: no tool for listing parcel carriers despite being referenced in parcel_tracking, no business search by name, and car history only covers flooding and scrap, missing general accident records. These gaps could limit agent workflows.