혼잡도 순위

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the sorting order and the filtering option, which goes beyond the annotation. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core function and immediately providing a usage example. Every word contributes value; no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (a sorted list of 121 places) and how to filter. A minor gap is that it does not describe the exact response fields (e.g., place name, congestion level), but this is not critical for basic usage.

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 coverage is 100%: both top (default 10, max 121) and category (enum of 5 values) are fully described in the schema. The description only adds that category can narrow the classification, which is marginal beyond what the schema already provides.

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 returns Seoul's 121 major places sorted by current congestion level, using the specific verb '반환합니다' and naming the exact resource. The congestion-order detail (붐빔 > 약간 붐빔 > 보통 > 여유) and the category filter explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like list_places and get_citydata.

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?

It provides a concrete use-case example ('지금 가장 붐비는 곳이 어디야?') and explains that category can narrow the result, which is strong usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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