장소 목록

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safe read-only nature, the description adds useful context by specifying the exact count (121 places) and that these are places with real-time city data. It also discloses the partial-match filtering behavior, going beyond the annotation and enriching the agent's understanding of the tool's scope.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes the key filter capability. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or filler, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core purpose, the dataset scope, and the filtering behavior. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state what the output list contains (e.g., place names and/or IDs), but the title and description strongly imply a list of place identifiers, so it is sufficiently complete.

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% for the single optional 'query' parameter, which already describes it as a partial match filter and that omitting it returns all. The tool description merely restates this ('query 로 장소명을 부분 일치 필터링할 수 있습니다'), adding no new semantic information. Thus the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 '나열합니다' (lists) and specifies the resource as '서울시 실시간 도시데이터가 제공되는 주요 121개 장소' (main 121 places with real-time city data). This clearly defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like get_citydata and get_congestion_ranking, which focus on data retrieval and rankings rather than listing places.

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 implies usage for listing available places where Seoul real-time data exists, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. It states the optional query filter for partial matching, but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools or exclusions, making the usage guidance only implicit.

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