list_places

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

The description provides important behavioral instructions: it warns that the list contains no congestion data, tells the agent not to claim knowledge of congestion, and specifies the exact response phrasing to use. This goes beyond the schema and helps avoid hallucinated output.

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 moderately concise but contains redundant phrasing around the congestion disclaimer and the mixed-request guidance. It could be better organized into clearer bullets or shorter sentences, but it is not excessively long.

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 description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema. It tells the agent what to say about missing congestion data, but it does not describe the output fields, the meaning of 'cd', or the behavior of 'limit'. This leaves important context for correct invocation ambiguous.

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 has zero descriptions for parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'category' parameter with concrete examples and mapping, but it does not clarify what 'cd' means or how to format it, and 'limit' is not mentioned at all.

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 that the tool returns a list of places by region and category, and it specifies category values using the Korea Tourism Organization classification. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic search tools, though 'cd' as the region identifier is not explicit.

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?

The description gives some usage guidance, such as handling mixed requests like '한적한 웰니스' and noting that the list order is not by popularity. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to sibling tools like find_attraction or recommend_quiet, so the when-to-use versus alternatives is only partially addressed.

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