Search Seoul cultural events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool can handle natural-language-style questions and supports filtering by multiple criteria. However, it does not explain the return format, default behavior with no parameters, or data source, which would add further transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with a clear English sentence, followed by a Korean translation and an example. The Korean translation is redundant since it mirrors the title, but the example adds value and the overall length is appropriate.

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 search tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview including event categories, filter dimensions, and an example use case. It could be enhanced by mentioning default result limits or the nature of events covered, but it is adequate for invoking the tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description groups parameters into meaningful categories (keyword/category/district/date-range/free-only), which adds a useful high-level overview, but it does not add semantics beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 searches Seoul cultural events, listing specific event categories (concerts, exhibitions, festivals) and filter dimensions (keyword, category, district, date-range, free-only). This is specific and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like search_place or get_weather.

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 includes a concrete example query ('이번 주말 마포구 무료 공연 있어?' meaning 'Is there a free performance in Mapo-gu this weekend?') which illustrates a natural language usage scenario. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the domain is clear enough and distinct from siblings.

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