어린이집 찾기·입소대기 링크 안내(조회 없음)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: it performs no external lookup, returns only links and general guidance, omits capacity/cost/waiting-rank data, and requires no API key. The one gap is that it does not say how fresh or authoritative the linked pages are, but that is minor for a pure guidance tool.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded: purpose first, then limitations, then the no-API-key note. Each sentence carries distinct information, though the final API-key sentence is a minor extra for an already read-only, keyless-looking tool.

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?

For a 4-optional-parameter, annotation-covered tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it returns (links and general guidance) and what it will not return, which is the key completeness concern. It stops short of describing the shape or granularity of the guidance text, but that is a small residual gap.

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% and each parameter already documents format, examples, defaults (today = Korean time), and the birth_date/due_date mutual exclusion. The description only echoes that the guidance is keyed to region and birth/due date, adding essentially no semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 names a specific action and resource: it returns daycare search and 입소대기 application page links plus regional selection steps, type-specific check items, and waiting-list procedure, keyed to region and birth/due date. It also states a negative scope explicitly ("외부 데이터를 조회하지 않아 정원·현원·대기 순번·비용 정보는 알려주지 않으며"), which makes it easy to distinguish from sibling lookup-style tools such as find_kindergarten or find_local_support.

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?

It clearly indicates the context of use: when a user has a region and a child's birth date or due date and needs the application link and procedure guidance. It also rules out use for capacity, enrollment count, waiting rank, or cost questions, which is useful exclusion guidance. What is missing is an explicit pointer to an alternative tool for those excluded data needs.

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