search_bjdong_code

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 mentions the tool is for '빠르게 찾습니다' (quickly find), suggesting efficiency, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs. It doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides minimal behavioral context beyond basic purpose.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines. It's front-loaded with essential information and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics, but could improve by adding more behavioral details (e.g., response format hints). The output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds semantic context by explaining that the 'query' parameter should be a '지역명(예: 강동구 고덕동)' (region name, e.g., Gangdong-gu Godeok-dong), clarifying it's for location names rather than codes or other inputs. This compensates well for the low schema coverage.

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's purpose: '검색하여 빠르게 찾습니다' (search and quickly find) for '시군구코드(sigungu_cd) 및 법정동코드(bjdong_cd)' using '지역명(예: 강동구 고덕동)' (region name). It specifies the exact resource (codes) and verb (search/find), distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve building information rather than codes.

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 explicit usage guidelines: '사용자의 주소 관련 질의에 대해 본 API를 호출하기 전에 코드를 획득하기 위해 반드시 이 툴을 먼저 사용하세요' (For user address-related queries, you must use this tool first to obtain codes before calling the main API). It specifies when to use (before API calls for address queries) and implies alternatives (the main API tools listed as siblings).

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