kakao_maps_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the API source (Kakao Maps API) and geographic scope (South Korea), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, error handling, or what the response looks like. For a search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 description is two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides targeted usage context. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with essential 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?

Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover response format, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. While it specifies the geographic and linguistic scope, it misses critical behavioral context needed for effective tool invocation, especially for a search tool that likely returns complex results.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how x/y and radius interact) or provide usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add value here.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search Korean places via Kakao Maps API' with specific domains (Korean addresses, local businesses, POI search in South Korea). It distinguishes itself from siblings like google_maps_places by specifying the Korean focus, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'search' is specific and the resource 'places' is clear.

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 description provides implicit usage context: 'Best for Korean addresses, local businesses, and POI search in South Korea.' This suggests when to use it (Korean-focused searches) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives like google_maps_places. It offers some guidance but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.

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