kakao_search_place

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: adding x,y and radius enables a surrounding search. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like result limits, sorting behavior, or whether the query must be a place name. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single, compact sentence with useful examples. It conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the primary usage and gives examples that anchor parameter semantics. It doesn't detail return values, but the core purpose and trigger for coordinate-based search are clear. Given the straightforward nature of the tool, this is sufficient, though not exhaustive.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by explicitly linking x,y and radius to the surrounding search use case, but it doesn't explain parameter syntax or formats beyond the schema. It neither compensates nor contradicts, so a baseline score 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 states the tool searches for places by keyword, and optionally performs a surrounding search using coordinates and radius. It includes concrete examples ('강남역 카페', '판교 맛집') that illustrate typical queries, effectively distinguishing it from geocoding and category-based sibling 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?

The description provides clear usage context: keyword search, and when coordinates (x,y) and radius are supplied, a nearby search. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the examples and wording imply when this tool is appropriate relative to siblings like kakao_place_by_category or kakao_coord_to_address.

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