Stamp Tour (스탬프투어)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description usefully adds two behavioral facts beyond the annotations: results are restricted to tours containing a stamp location, and they are ordered nearest-first. It says nothing about result caps, pagination, or what an empty result means, so it is a moderate rather than rich disclosure.

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 declarative sentence with no filler, and the coordinate-proximity constraint is front-loaded. Every element 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 three-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations handling safety, the definition is just barely sufficient. It omits sibling differentiation and any hint about result size or boundary behavior, which matters given the ambiguity with search_tours.

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%, so lat, lng, and radius_km (including its default of 20 and max of 100) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, unit, or format information beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('투어를 찾는다' / find tours) plus the scope: tours with stamp locations near given coordinates, sorted by proximity. This is more informative than the title alone, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'search_tours', leaving an agent to infer the boundary between them.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never names or contrasts with the alternatives (search_tours, get_tour, get_app_info). Usage is only implied by the coordinate-based phrasing, so an agent must guess how this differs from a general tour search.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without help from the description. The description's only contribution is scoping the returned content (app identity plus participation procedure), which is mild added value; it says nothing about caching, availability, or whether participation steps are localized.

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 terse bullet-style fragment with no filler, and the most identifying content (app name) leads. It is a noun phrase rather than a sentence, so it reads slightly clipped, but nothing in it is wasteful.

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 zero-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately conveys both the source (the stamp tour app itself) and the returned fields. The main missing piece is routing guidance against sibling tools, which a caller may still need to infer.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The field list substitutes usefully for the absent output schema by telling the agent what shape of data to expect.

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 enumerates the exact resource fields returned — app name, operator, install URL, participation steps — which is specific enough that an agent knows this is the app-level metadata endpoint, not a tour endpoint like its siblings get_tour or search_tours. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'looks up') and never states it is a retrieval operation, but the field list does the disambiguating work.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance appears anywhere. Nothing tells the agent to reach for this tool when a user asks how to join the stamp tour versus calling get_tour for a specific tour's details, even though the participation-steps content makes that routing question very plausible.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's contribution is enumerating exactly what data comes back (places, gift steps, notices, FAQ), which is valuable context given there is no output schema. It stops short of stating any freshness, caching, or error behavior.

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?

One compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and the returned fields enumerated inline. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical field list is dense and slightly hard to scan.

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 read-only, single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well by naming the payload sections. Missing only usage framing and any note on what happens if the id is invalid or the tour has no places.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in-schema as coming from search_tours results. The description adds no further semantics about the id (type, format, provenance) beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (돌려준다/returns) applied to a single tour (한 곳) and enumerates the payload it delivers – place list with name/coords/course, gift steps, notices, FAQ. '한 곳' implicitly separates it from search_tours and find_nearby_tours, though the contrast with siblings is not made explicit.

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 contains no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The only routing signal ('search_tours 결과의 id') lives in the schema, not the description, so an agent gets no usage framing from the text itself.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping context (results are limited to tours currently in progress, and no query yields the complete list) but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or ordering.

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 compact sentences with zero filler; the core action and its examples come first and the empty-query fallback is stated last. Every element 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 read-only, two-parameter search with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers scope, accepted inputs, and the no-query case. The only gap is not routing the agent away from the near-duplicate find_nearby_tours.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The examples of acceptable query values ('남원', '부산 영도', '해인사') add modest clarity, but receipt_event_only is unexplained beyond the schema wording, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: finds in-progress stamp tours by region, tour, or place name, with concrete examples ('남원', '부산 영도', '해인사'). It is distinguishable from get_tour (single lookup) but never references find_nearby_tours, so the differentiation from the location-based sibling is left to inference.

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?

Gives one clear usage rule — an empty search term returns the full list — which tells the agent how to enumerate everything. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over find_nearby_tours (name search vs. proximity search) or over get_tour.

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