search_destination

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly communicates a read-like transformation, but does not mention how ambiguous or non-existent destinations are handled, whether partial names are accepted, or what the exact coordinate output format is. This is minimally transparent but not richly so.

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?

A single Korean sentence conveys the action, the input, and the output with no filler words. The core idea is front-loaded and immediately understandable, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 one-parameter geocoding tool, the essential happy-path context is present. However, since there is no output schema, the description should ideally state the coordinate format (e.g., lat/lng) and behavior for missing or ambiguous destinations. The lack of such details leaves a small but real completeness gap.

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 only defines 'query' as a string with minLength 1, while the description clarifies that the query is the user-entered destination name. Since this is the only parameter, the description effectively provides the missing semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific action—converting a user-entered destination name into coordinates—which clearly distinguishes it from parking-focused siblings like find_parking_lots and recommend_parking. The verb '변환합니다' (converts) and resource '목적지명' (destination name) make the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when a destination name needs to be geocoded. However, there is no explicit statement about when to avoid it, prerequisites, or how it fits into a workflow with the sibling parking tools. This is adequate but relies on inference.

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