Find youth centers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: API source, client-side filtering, requirement of a key, and return fields. This goes beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with purpose first, then details. At 6-7 sentences, it is lengthy but each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 tool with 3 optional params and output schema, the description covers source, filtering, usage timing, and return fields. No gaps given annotations and output schema.

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 has 0% coverage, so description carries full burden. It explains region format (e.g., '서울', '경기 수원') and keyword as free-text. It does not detail limit, but given simplicity, it's adequate.

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 the tool finds nearby Korean youth centers for offline help, specifying the resource type and context (after policy matching). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_youth_policies by emphasizing in-person guidance.

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 explicitly says when to call: when the user wants face-to-face guidance or asks for nearby help. It mentions it's after policies are matched. No explicit when-not, but context makes it clear this is not for policy search.

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