Get complete details for a South Korean attraction, including overview, address, operating hours, and holidays, to plan your visit with accurate information.
관광지 상세: 개요, 주소, 운영시간·휴무일 등. 응답에 없는 항목은 명백하게 모른다고 응답하라.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states what fields are included and instructs the model to clearly say 'I don't know' for items missing from the response, which guards against hallucination. It does not cover error or not-found behavior, but for a simple detail lookup this is meaningful transparency.
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 compact and front-loaded: it states the resource and key fields first, then adds a clear behavioral instruction. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 is simple and the description covers the main return fields and how to handle missing data. However, with no output schema and no parameter explanation, it should also clarify where content_id comes from and when to prefer sibling tools like find_attraction; these gaps prevent full completeness.
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 0% and the description never explains the content_id parameter. The name and parameter name imply that content_id identifies an attraction, but no format, source, or relationship to find_attraction is provided, so an agent must infer the meaning.
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 names the resource ('관광지' attraction) and the content it returns (overview, address, operating hours, closed days), so an agent can infer it retrieves a single attraction's detail. It is distinguishable from siblings like find_attraction or list_places because it clearly targets detailed information for one attraction, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'get'.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like find_attraction, get_crowding, or list_places. The intended workflow is only implied: use this after identifying an attraction via find_attraction. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.