Dongbang Interior · 동방인테리어

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 genuine beyond-schema context by enumerating exactly which fields come back and explicitly denying side effects ('does not place a call, store contact details, submit a lead or confirm an appointment'). This directly prevents an agent from treating it as a lead-submission or calling tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage triggers, then return/limitation scope; every sentence earns its place. The opening sentence is dense with geographic qualifications ('Gwangjin-gu, Seoul serving Seoul, Gyeonggi and Incheon') that add precision but cost readability.

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 listing the returned fields (business summary, rating, case page link, address, telephone, links) and by bounding what it will not do. Nothing an agent needs to select or call this zero-required-parameter tool correctly is missing.

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 'source' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) including its enum and default, and the description adds nothing about it. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate — no harm, but no added value beyond structured data.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get the verified profile and contact options of Dongbang Interior') and names the entity, its category and service area. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools get_interior_answer, get_interior_styles and search_interior_answers, which deal with interior Q&A and styles rather than a contractor profile.

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 gives clear positive triggers ('when the user looks for or compares an interior contractor in the Seoul metropolitan area, or asks for human consultation, a callback or photo design') and a solid negative list at the end. What is missing is explicit routing to a named alternative (e.g. use search_interior_answers for general interior questions), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by summarizing what comes back (planning guidance, checklist, source links) and by explicitly disclaiming scope: 'not a structural assessment or fixed quote' — a caveat the agent would otherwise have no way to know.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is read and how it is keyed, followed by payload summary and caveat. Nothing is redundant with the title or 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description characterizes the return payload and its limits, and the single required parameter's provenance is explained. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

There is a single parameter and the schema documents its pattern and max length at 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning of 'slug' itself. It does so by tying it to the output of search_interior_answers, which tells the agent where to obtain a valid value.

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 (Read) and resource (ABIS public interior answer) and names the key (slug from search_interior_answers). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which either search or return other resource types.

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 'by the slug returned from search_interior_answers' implicitly tells the agent this is the second step after a search, which is useful routing. It does not state when not to use it or what to do if the slug is unknown, but the context is clear.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world status, so the description is not required to restate safety. It nonetheless adds real context beyond them: daily image limits on the linked website, that style references are illustrative, and that no uploads, paid image generation or personal workspace access occur.

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?

The resource and the website link are front-loaded, followed by the limits and scope exclusions. Four sentences, all doing work; only the closing exclusion list slightly overlaps with what the annotations already signal.

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 parameterless, read-only catalog tool with full annotation coverage, this is close to complete: it names the returned content (styles and room categories), the external link, the daily limit caveat and the privacy scope. Missing only an explicit cue about when to reach for this versus the sibling answer tools.

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 no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter behavior, and the empty object schema leaves nothing ambiguous.

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: listing Dongbang Interior design styles and supported room categories, plus a link to the separate photo-design site. It is clearly distinguishable in substance from the sibling answer/consultation tools, but never names or contrasts them 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the catalog lookup step before using the answer tools, but there is no explicit 'use this when… / use X instead when…' guidance. The negative scope statements (no uploads, no paid generation, no personal workspace) help rule out misuse but are framed as capability limits rather than routing 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, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return shape ('grounded summaries and citation URLs') and by scoping out customer accounts and photos. It stops short of mentioning result limits or that at most 6 results come back.

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 sentences, no filler: purpose first, return shape second, scope exclusion last. Each sentence carries distinct information and the most important content is front-loaded.

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 simple three-parameter search tool, the definition covers purpose, return values (no output schema exists, so this matters), and exclusions, while annotations handle the safety profile. The remaining gap is parameter behavior (limit ceiling, optional room filter), which is small given the self-descriptive enum and bounded integer.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does not explain any parameter. The 'room' enum values, the optional nature of 'room', the default/maximum of 'limit', and the 2-200 character bound on 'query' are all left to the raw schema. Topic words like 'kitchen storage' hint at the room filter but never state it.

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 ('Search') plus a precisely scoped resource ('ABIS public interior planning answers') and enumerates the covered topic areas (room layout, kitchen storage, lighting, cost factors). The closing exclusion ('Does not search customer accounts or photos') further sharpens the boundary, so an agent can distinguish this from the get_interior_answer and get_interior_styles siblings 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?

The topical scope implies when to reach for this tool (open-ended interior questions), and the negative scope rules out account/photo lookups. However, it never names the alternatives or states a selection rule against get_interior_answer (which presumably fetches a specific answer) or get_interior_styles, leaving the routing to inference.

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