opinet-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full safety burden. It compensates by listing specific return fields (facilities, coordinates, prices), which is helpful without an output schema. However, lacks disclosure on error handling (e.g., invalid ID), rate limits, or data freshness.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first defines the operation and input, second enumerates return fields. No redundancy or filler content.

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 single-parameter lookup tool without annotations or output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the complete return payload structure. Missing error scenario documentation prevents a 5.

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% with clear description of the 'id' parameter including format example (A0000305). Description mentions UNI_ID but primarily restates schema information. Baseline 3 appropriate since schema fully documents the single 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?

Clear verb (조회/retrieve) and resource (주유소 상세정보/station details). Implicitly distinguishes from price-aggregate siblings by focusing on comprehensive single-station data, though could explicitly contrast with aggregate tools for a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with sibling tools (e.g., when to use detail lookup vs. price averages). The UNI_ID requirement implies specific station lookup, but lacks explicit usage patterns.

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