kakao_map_place_recommender

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately indicates that the tool performs a read-only recommendation operation, but it does not mention return format, potential limitations, or any underlying data source. This is acceptable for a simple recommender but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose (recommends places in South Korea) and then expands with concrete examples. It contains no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity—one parameter and no output schema—the description sufficiently explains what it does and what kind of input it expects. A minor gap is that it doesn't hint at the response structure, but this is not a major issue for a straightforward recommendation 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 input schema provides 100% coverage with a detailed description of the 'query' parameter, including specific examples and guidance on combining place type and location. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 uses a specific verb 'Recommends' and clearly identifies the resource as 'places in South Korea', with a diverse list of place types (restaurants, cafes, parks, etc.). This makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishes it from other potential tools even without sibling context.

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 clearly implies usage when users seek place recommendations in South Korea. Although no explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives are listed, there are no sibling tools to differentiate from, so the implied context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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