kakao_coord_to_address

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the core reverse-geocoding function and gives an example, but it omits important details such as return format, whether both road and lot addresses are returned, coordinate system, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves the agent without critical information about what to expect from the 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 with the primary function, followed by a helpful example. Every element serves a purpose, with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the description is incomplete because there is no output schema and no annotations. It does not describe the return structure, address type behavior, or failure modes. An agent would not know whether to expect a single string or structured fields, or how invalid coordinates are handled. This is a significant gap for a tool that produces complex address data.

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 input schema already documents x as longitude and y as latitude with 100% coverage. The description's example (x=127.1086, y=37.4012) provides a concrete illustration of expected values and confirms the order, but it does not add deeper semantics such as value ranges, coordinate format requirements, or units. This is a marginal addition, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool's function: converting latitude/longitude coordinates to road name and land lot addresses ('도로명/지번 주소로 역변환'). The verb '역변환' (reverse convert) is specific and the concrete example with x and y values reinforces the input format. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kakao_address_to_coord (forward conversion) and kakao_coord_to_region (region-level) by focusing on full addresses.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It does not mention that kakao_coord_to_region is appropriate for administrative region lookups or state any exclusions. The only usage cue is the basic operation itself, which is trivial and not helpful for selecting between alternatives.

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