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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent search. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the dataset scope (50,000+ Korean places) and, importantly with no output schema, the fields returned. It still omits result ordering, pagination/no-results behavior, and any auth or rate-limit context.

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, front-loaded with purpose and followed by return fields. Every phrase carries useful information and there is no filler.

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 search tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essential purpose, search axes, and return shape. It stops just short of fully complete by not covering result ordering, filter combination, or no-results behavior.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters, enum values, and locale fallback behavior. The description only maps the high-level search dimensions (keyword, region, category) and does not add semantics for limit, locale, or how filters combine.

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: searching Korean tourist attractions, restaurants, lodging, shopping, culture facilities and festivals. It also names the search axes (keyword, region, category), making the basic function clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as find_nearby_places or list_festivals.

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?

Usage is implied by the listed search dimensions: keyword, region and category. The description never states when to choose this tool over find_nearby_places, get_related_places, or list_festivals, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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