validate_region_slug

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and return behavior. It only says 'checks validity' without specifying whether it returns a boolean, throws an error, or has any side effects. For a validation tool, knowing the response format is critical, and this is absent.

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 clear sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose in minimal words, which is ideal for quick comprehension.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the caller receives. It does not. For a validation tool, an agent needs to understand the response type (e.g., true/false, error message) to use it correctly. The simplicity of the input schema doesn't compensate for this missing information.

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 already comprehensively documents the only parameter, regionSlug, including an example. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a 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 clearly states a specific action: '확인합니다' (checks/validates) on a specific resource: '동네 슬러그' (neighborhood slug). This unambiguously defines the tool's purpose and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle listings or market searches.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a slug first) or typical use cases like pre-validating before another operation. The description only restates what it does, not 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.