holiday_infoLook up Korean public holidays for a given year and month. 해당 년월의 대한민국 공휴일 정보를 조회합니다. 영업일 계산, 일정 관리 등에 사용합니다. [호출당 3포인트]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | 조회 년도 (1900 ~ 2200, 예: 2024) | |
| month | Yes | 조회 월 (1 ~ 12, 예: 02) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the cost per call (3 points), which is a rate-related disclosure, and confirms it is a read operation. It does not contradict annotations.
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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes bilingual repetition (English and Korean) which is slightly redundant, but the extra information about use cases and cost is valuable. Overall, it is concise and structured effectively.
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?
Given the low complexity, complete parameter schema, and read-only annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It explains when to use the tool and notes the per-call cost, which is practically important. Without an output schema, a richer return format description would be useful, but it is not essential for this simple lookup tool.
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% with both year and month parameters fully described. The description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, such as formats or ranges, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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: looking up Korean public holidays for a given year and month. It uses a specific verb ('Look up') and a specific resource ('Korean public holidays'), and it is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which deal with holidays.
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 explicitly mentions use cases such as 'business day calculation' and 'schedule management' (영업일 계산, 일정 관리). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but there are no similar sibling tools, so the context is clear.
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.