site_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behavior: the tool returns scope and jurisdiction, is intended to run early in a chain, and requires the agent to disclose when coordinate results lack confirmed administrative district information. It does not cover error behavior or what happens with invalid or conflicting inputs, but the core behavioral traits are transparently stated.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The core transformation purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage priority and a necessary caveat. Every sentence contributes actionable information, and the structure makes the tool's role immediately understandable.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It covers the input signals, the invocation order relative to other tools, what to do with the results, and a critical estimateness caveat. A slight gap is the absence of guidance for conflicting or incomplete inputs, but for a simple 3-parameter optional tool this is a minor omission.

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 baseline is 3 and the description does not need to add much parameter detail. The description does map '지명' to the region parameter and '좌표' to lat/lng, which is helpful context, but the schema already describes each parameter accurately, including the coordinate fallback role. No additional semantic value beyond the schema is provided.

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 a specific function: converting place names and coordinates into climate, culture, and jurisdiction conditions. It also positions the tool as the first one to call when geographic references appear, which differentiates it from the sibling tools even without naming a direct alternative. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from a specific sibling by name, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 explicit usage context: when site, region, administrative district, or coordinates are mentioned, call this tool before others, and pass the returned scope and jurisdiction into downstream queries. It also includes a clear instruction about labeling unconfirmed coordinate results as estimates. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for exclusions, so it is strong but not maximal.

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