Find nearby places by category in South Korea

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (all matching places plotted on a map), the area-required limitation, and the prerequisite lookup; it does not cover permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior, which keeps it below 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?

The text is front-loaded with a priority routing statement and organized into USAGE, ALTERNATIVES, PREREQUISITE, and NOTE. Every sentence adds distinct information: when to use it, why keyword search fails, the alternative, the prerequisite, and the no-nationwide-mode constraint.

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?

An output schema exists and a rich 11-parameter input schema is present, so return values and parameter syntax need not be repeated. The description supplies the missing decision context – category suitability, sibling routing, prerequisite ordering, and area limitation – so an agent has what it needs to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already explains x1/y1/x2/y2, area, radius, sort, pagination fields, and showMap. The description reinforces that catecode is required and obtained via lookup_category_code, but adds little beyond the schema's own documentation.

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 verb and resource ('Returns every place of one category within a radius or box') and names its scope (South Korea). It distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by saying keyword searches miss multi-brand categories and pointing to search_places for named businesses.

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 gives explicit routing: prefer this tool for 'what is near here' questions, use it for categories whose members carry different brand names, use search_places for one named business. It also states the prerequisite (call lookup_category_code first) and the exclusion (no nationwide mode; an area is always required).

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