kakao_address_to_coord

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention that the tool returns a normalized address, which is an additional behavior beyond the name's implication. However, it does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the exact response format, which are relevant for an external API 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: two sentences that state the core behavior and provide an example. There is no redundant information or filler. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the main purpose, the input format via the example, and the output (coordinates and normalized address). It lacks an example of the output structure, which would be useful since no output schema is available, but it is sufficient for a straightforward conversion tool.

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 the 'query' parameter as the address string to search (100% coverage). The description adds value by providing a concrete example of a valid address format, including Korean road address syntax. This helps the agent understand what kind of string is expected beyond the generic schema description.

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 converts addresses (both road name and lot number) to latitude/longitude coordinates and returns a normalized address. The provided example '경기도 성남시 분당구 판교역로 235' further clarifies the expected input. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kakao_coord_to_address, which perform the reverse operation.

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 makes it clear that this tool should be used when you have an address and need to obtain geographic coordinates. While it does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusion criteria, the purpose is specific enough to infer when to use it over siblings. The lack of explicit alternatives is a minor gap, 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.