영유아 건강검진 기관 찾기 안내·조회

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the auth requirement (DATA_GO_KR_SERVICE_KEY), the exact degradation behavior when the key is missing or the lookup fails (guidance only, no institution list), the fields returned (name, category, address, phone), and the boundary of what it will not answer. This is the kind of operational context annotations cannot carry.

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 core capability is front-loaded in the first sentence and the caveats follow in a logical order. It is on the long side and the closing '키 없이도 쓸 수 있습니다' partly repeats the earlier no-key fallback sentence, a small redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return content, and it does: institution list fields plus fixed guidance on menu path, contacts, preparation, and current/next checkup rounds. With all parameters optional, it also covers the no-argument path and the keyless path, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with formats and examples. The description restates that region drives the lookup and dates drive round calculation, and echoes the birth_date/due_date mutual exclusion already in the schema, adding little beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 concrete verb and resource: finding infant/toddler health-checkup institutions by region and the child's birth date (or due date), plus supplementary guidance. It is not tautological and adds scope limits ('예약 가능 여부나 검진 결과는 알려주지 않으며'). It stops short of naming or contrasting sibling tools such as find_vaccination_clinic or find_night_pediatric, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage context is clear: supply a region plus birth_date or due_date for a lookup, or run without them for general guidance, and it works even without the API key (degrading to guidance-only). Explicit exclusions (no reservations, no results) help the agent avoid misrouting. The gap is that no alternative sibling tool is named for adjacent needs like vaccination or night pediatric clinics.

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