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 that the call is free and how many records are returned (121), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about read-only nature, side effects, or the shape of the response.

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 short fragments with no filler. However, 'Free.' is front-loaded despite being the least decision-relevant fact, pushing the actual scope statement to second position.

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?

With no output schema, the description should convey what the caller receives; '121 Seoul places (with codes)' gives a rough shape but not the fields per place or the encoding of the codes. Adequate for a zero-required-param lookup, but thin.

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 single `lang` parameter is 100% documented in the schema with its enum values and default. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

It names the resource (the 121 Seoul places) and their key attribute (codes), and ties them to the sibling tool seoul_now that consumes them. The verb is implied rather than stated ('list/retrieve'), but the resource and scope are specific enough to distinguish it from siblings.

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 phrase 'accepted by seoul_now' implies the intended workflow (fetch valid place codes before calling seoul_now), but it never states when to use this tool versus seoul_now itself or seoul_trip_pack. Usage is inferable, not explicit.

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