Look up a place category code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and delivers: it discloses that execution is local with no API call, that category names are Korean, and that codes form a six-digit hierarchy so a parent query also returns brand leaf codes (GS25, CU for 110700). That hierarchy warning is exactly the kind of interpretive nuance structured fields don't capture. It stops short of covering edge cases like partial-match behavior or empty results, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then USAGE and NOTE blocks separated by explicit labels. Every clause carries information – counts, locality, sibling routing, hierarchy example – with no 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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation. For a two-parameter local lookup, the description covers what the tool does, when to call it, what the input language is, and how to pick parent versus leaf codes. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including substring matching and the limit default. The description reinforces the code/name duality and gives a worked example (110700), but its hierarchy discussion concerns result interpretation more than the parameters themselves. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (search 1045 INAVI Maps place-category codes for South Korea by name, return the codes) and names the downstream siblings that consume the output. An agent can immediately tell this apart from search_nearby_category and search_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?

Explicitly says to call it first whenever a catecode is needed for search_nearby_category, and notes search_places accepts the same codes. That is a concrete ordering rule plus the set of tools this feeds.

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