Festival Times — Korean Festivals

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world); the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the Asia/Seoul timezone, how the weekend window collapses on a Sunday, and that every result carries its festivaltimes.net URL with a citation instruction. Pagination/result-cap behavior is left to the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences: scope first, edge case second, usage example and citation duty last. Nothing is redundant with the schema and every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything needed: window definition, timezone, filter scope, and what results contain.

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 region parameter already documents accepted Korean province/city forms, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that region is an optional filter, adding no new semantics.

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 ("List festivals in South Korea") plus a precise temporal scope (this coming weekend, Saturday-Sunday, Asia/Seoul) with the Sunday edge case resolved. It doesn't name the overlapping sibling search_festivals to say how this differs from a general festival search, so 4 rather than 5.

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 a concrete trigger example ("이번 주말 경기도 축제"), which tells the agent the intent this tool serves. There is no explicit when-not or pointer to search_festivals for other date ranges, so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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 the safety profile: readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds useful context by disclosing that this returns public details and related Festival Times articles. It does not describe error behavior for invalid or missing festivals, but the annotations reduce the burden.

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 no filler. The scope is front-loaded and the parameter guidance follows immediately.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: it lists the returned fields and explains how to obtain the identifier. It does not mention not-found behavior or whether related articles are paginated, which keeps it below a 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds workflow meaning by saying the parameter should be the slug or URL returned by search_festivals, or the festival id, which helps the agent source the identifier correctly.

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 states a specific resource and scope: full public details for one festival, then enumerates the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from search_festivals by referencing the slug/URL that search returns and by focusing on a single festival.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use a slug or URL returned by search_festivals, or a festival id, which establishes when this tool should be called. It does not state exclusions or contrast with other sibling tools, so it falls short of a full when/when-not guideline.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description contributes beyond them by naming the concrete return fields (title, date, summary, URL), which is the main missing piece for a read tool with no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the category vocabulary in a single parenthetical, then the return shape. The category enumeration is long but each item is functional rather than 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 2-optional-param read tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, valid inputs, and return fields, so an agent can call it without opening the schema. Only the routing question against sibling search_articles is unaddressed.

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%, so baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by enumerating the valid category values in both slug and Korean form, effectively converting an open maxLength-50 string into a known allowlist — information the schema does not supply.

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+resource ('Latest published articles from Festival Times'), identifies the source and its beat, and lists the categories served. An agent knows exactly what it retrieves, though it never distinguishes itself from sibling search_articles (keyword-driven) or get_festival.

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 'latest' and by the fact that both parameters are optional (call with no arguments for the default feed). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_articles, and no exclusions or prerequisites given.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: results are ordered newest first and each result carries title, date, summary and URL. It stops short of covering zero-result behavior or matching semantics (substring vs. word match).

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 highest-value information: what is searched first, then what comes back. The Korean keyword example is short and directly actionable, with 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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers resource scope, search fields, ordering and return shape, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing only edge-case behavior such as empty results or match semantics.

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 both parameters including the 50-character truncation and the 1-20 limit range. The description reinforces the query parameter with a practical hint about Korean keywords and typical keyword shapes, but says nothing about limit, so it adds only marginal 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?

States a specific verb and resource (search published Festival Times articles) and narrows the search surface to title or summary, which distinguishes it from the sibling search tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_festivals or latest_news, so an agent must infer the boundary from the resource name alone.

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?

Offers a usage tip (use Korean keywords, e.g. a festival or town name) but gives no guidance on when to choose this over search_festivals or latest_news, and no exclusions or preconditions. Usage is implied by the resource type rather than stated.

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 read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond that: the upstream data source and its English-edition provenance, the default date window (today to 30 days), and the shape of what comes back including Korean titles and a festivaltimes.net URL.

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 dense paragraph with the scope front-loaded, then filtering, then return shape. No sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the fields returned. Minor residual gaps: no mention of result ordering, and limit behavior lives only in the schema.

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%, so a 3 is the floor, and the description earns above it by explaining that the keyword matches title, performer and venue, and that from/to default to today through 30 days out — neither of which the schema states.

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 and resource (search popular-music concerts) and pins the scope tightly: South Korea, KOPIS data via the Festival Times English edition. An agent can tell it apart from search_festivals or festivals_this_weekend without opening a schema.

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 rather than stated: 'popular-music concerts' vs the festival siblings is an implicit carve-out, and the default date window signals a sensible no-arg call. But no sibling is named as an alternative and there are no explicit when-not conditions.

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 cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description wisely spends its words elsewhere: data language (Korean), the returned fields, and the requirement to cite the festivaltimes.net URL. It does not mention pagination behaviour beyond `limit`, but the citation instruction is a meaningful behavioral addition.

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?

Four tight sentences that front-load the scope, then the date semantics, then the return payload, then the citation rule. No sentence is filler and nothing is buried.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, dates, region, venue, summary, URL). Combined with the zero-required-parameter default range and the citation requirement, an agent has everything needed to call and use the result correctly.

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%, so parameter syntax is already handled. The description still adds value by disclosing the default window (today to +30 days) and the overlap semantics ('running at any point between `from` and `to`'), which the schema does not state.

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 ('Search festivals in South Korea') plus the data source (Festival Times). It implies differentiation from festivals_this_weekend by specifying an arbitrary from/to window, but never names any sibling tool 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 default date range (today to 30 days later) gives useful context for when the tool applies out of the box. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over festivals_this_weekend or when to use get_festival for a single festival, so routing is only implied.

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