kakao_place_by_category

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It accurately describes the search operation but adds minimal context beyond that—no mention of API key requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The category code list is helpful but does not fully address operational traits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a required-parameter note and a compact mapping table. There is no irrelevant detail, and the long code list is necessary. The structure is clean and efficient.

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 simple search tool, the description is fairly complete: it covers the primary action, required input, and category codes. However, it does not mention the return format or output structure, which is notable given the absence of an output schema, though this is somewhat expected for a list-returning search function.

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 provides descriptions and examples for all parameters, but the description goes further by enumerating every valid category_group_code (MT1, CS2, etc.) with meanings. This is essential for correct usage and far exceeds the schema's two examples.

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 searches for places of a specific category around given coordinates. It lists all category codes, making the scope unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kakao_search_place (general search) and coordinate conversion utilities.

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 indicates when to use this tool (when you need places by category near coordinates) and explicitly notes that a category code is required. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using a general place search instead.

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