병원 검색

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose return fields and the data source (심평원 병원정보서비스), but it does not mention pagination behavior, default output format, or what happens when no filters are provided. The linkage hint adds useful context, but some behavioral traits remain implicit.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the purpose, then efficiently lists return fields, linkage workflow, and source. Every clause contributes value without repetition or unnecessary 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 search tool with 7 parameters but no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential workflow (search → get ykiho → pass to other tools) and return fields. It could optionally mention pagination or format behavior, but the schema handles parameter details, so the description is reasonably complete.

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 schema already describes all 7 parameters with examples and constraints (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond grouping them into categories (name/region/type/department) that are already clear from 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?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource ('병원을 검색해') and lists concrete search dimensions (기관명/지역/종별/진료과목) and return fields (ykiho, 주소, 전화, 좌표). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly noting that the resulting ykiho should be passed to 비급여/상세 tools.

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 context: use this tool to search hospitals and obtain ykiho, then pass it to detail/non-payment tools. This implies a workflow and differentiates it from sibling tools, though it does not name exact alternative tool names or exclusion cases.

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