예방접종 위탁의료기관 찾기 링크 안내(조회 없음)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — no API key required, no live data query, and guidance is based on standard schedule data — but it does not describe how the link or contact information is structured in the response.

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, followed by the important negative scope and the no-API-key note. It is a single dense paragraph that runs slightly long, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With four optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description does the necessary work by enumerating what the tool returns (link, selection steps, contacts, pre-visit checklist, current/next dose) and what it does not. Only the exact shape of the returned guidance is left unspecified.

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 formats, examples, and the due_date/birth_date mutual exclusion are already documented in the schema. The description restates the region and birth-date/due-date intent in prose but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the structured fields, 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 resource (national vaccination consignment clinics) and explicitly clarifies that it returns a screen link, selection procedure, contacts, and schedule-based dose guidance rather than performing a lookup. This directly counters the misleading 'find_' verb in the name and separates it from siblings like find_checkup_clinic or find_night_pediatric.

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 states the input context (region plus birth date or due date) and an explicit exclusion: no institution list, stock, or reservation availability is provided. However, it does not name an alternative tool an agent should call when it actually needs clinic data, leaving that routing to inference.

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