Real-time commercial (card payment) activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the real-time nature, the data source (신한카드 실시간 결제 기반), the output granularity (4 levels and per-industry breakdown), and the supported scope (82 places). It does not detail error handling or return format, but the provided traits are substantial for a read-only retrieval 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: one English sentence describes the core function and scope, followed by two short Korean phrases for data source and usage example. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides key completion details: return content (activity level and industry breakdown), supported scope (82 places), and an example user question. It could mention unsupported place behavior, but the overall context is adequate for selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage: the 'place' parameter description says '핫스팟 장소명 (상권은 82곳만 지원)'. The tool description repeats this ('Seoul hotspot (82 supported places)') but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 starts with a specific verb 'Get' and clearly defines the resource: 'real-time card-payment based commercial activity level' with a 4-level scale and 'per-industry breakdown for a Seoul hotspot (82 supported places).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_population or get_city_snapshot by naming the data source and specific output.

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 gives concrete usage context: 'Seoul hotspot (82 supported places)' and a Korean example query '지금 성수동 장사 잘돼?' (Is business good in Seongsu-dong right now?). This implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or edge-case exclusions.

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