EasyBuilder Korean Local Business Directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world semantics, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral content beyond that: the payload contains 'confirmed facts', explicitly including 'missing information' and 'sources', which tells the agent the result is provenance-tagged and may have gaps rather than being a complete record.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a compact parenthetical enumeration of returned fields. Nothing is wasted and the field list is load-bearing because there is no output schema.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what matters most: the shape of the returned data. It could be slightly more complete by noting that the id is obtained from search_businesses, but otherwise an agent has what it needs.

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% for the single id parameter, and the schema itself states the id comes from search_businesses output. The description adds no additional semantics about the identifier, 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 concrete verb+resource: returning the confirmed facts of a single business, with the returned categories enumerated. It is clearly distinguishable from the plural sibling search_businesses, though the sibling is never named explicitly.

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 usage is only implied — fetch one business's details, presumably using an id obtained from search_businesses. The description states no when-to-use condition, no prerequisite (e.g. 'call search_businesses first if you only have a name'), and no alternative. The schema hints the id comes from search results, but that is structured-field context, not description guidance.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds the discovery-to-detail handoff with get_business, which is genuinely useful context, but nothing about result shape, ranking/pagination behavior, or empty-result 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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the essential information: purpose plus filter axes first, then the concrete example and the downstream handoff. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 4-parameter, no-required, no-output-schema search tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, filters, example values, and the next step. The only minor gap is that it does not mention the default/max result count (limit defaults to 10, capped at 20), though the schema already states this.

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 all four parameters including limit are already documented. The description's worked example (region '대구 수성구', industry '노래방', query '단체룸 주차') usefully shows that region accepts a compound city+district string and that query targets shop name/menu/features, adding modest value over the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (찾습니다/find) and resource (이지빌더 사업장), plus the filter axes (지역·업종·키워드) that map to the three main parameters. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling by positioning itself as the discovery step whose result feeds get_business.

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?

Explicitly states the follow-up action: pass the returned id to get_business, which makes the search→fetch workflow unambiguous. It does not state when NOT to use this (e.g. if the id is already known, call get_business directly), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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