tmap_poi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching for 'Korean points of interest' and 'Korean address details,' but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence ('Good for finding specific locations with Korean address details.') could be more integrated or omitted if it doesn't add significant value, as it partially overlaps with the first.

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 the complexity of a search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error conditions, and differentiation from siblings. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for an AI agent to use this tool effectively is inadequate.

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. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying Korean language support for the search keyword, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or usage tips. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 points of interest via TMap.' It specifies the action (search), resource (points of interest), and geographic focus (Korean). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kakao_maps_search' or 'google_maps_places' beyond mentioning TMap as the provider.

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 minimal guidance: 'Good for finding specific locations with Korean address details.' This implies usage for Korean addresses but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'kakao_maps_search' or 'google_maps_places', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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