get_detailed_region_codes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself must disclose behavioral traits. The verb '조회' (lookup) vaguely implies a read operation, but the description discloses nothing about side effects, permissions, error conditions, or the nature of the results. It offers only the bare minimum lexical hint.

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?

One short sentence, but it is under-specification rather than concise. The sentence simply paraphrases the tool name and does not earn its place by adding useful information. There is no front-loaded detail about what the query returns.

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?

Without an output schema and with no annotations, this description leaves the agent uninformed about output format, hierarchy of returned codes, or any additional constraints. The single sentence covers none of the contextual information needed for correct use, so it is inadequate for a regional-code lookup tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, including an explicit enum with province labels for the 'region' parameter. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, and the schema already fully explains the single required argument. 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?

The description '세부지역 코드를 조회합니다' (Queries detailed region codes) simply restates the tool name with a generic verb. It does not define what a 'detailed region code' is or differentiate from siblings like get_region_codes or search_detailed_region_codes, leaving real ambiguity.

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 whatsoever about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_detailed_region_codes or get_region_codes. No preconditions, scenarios, or exclusions are mentioned. The description carries no usage context.

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