device_nearby_stations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral expectations. It conveys that the operation is a read ('조회'), returns a list, and is sorted by distance ('거리순'). However, it omits operational details such as authentication requirements, whether a valid session is needed, and what fields appear in the output. These gaps are meaningful given the absence of annotation coverage.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core operation and then gives a practical use case. There is no redundant phrasing or repetition of schema information. Every word earns its place.

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 one fully documented parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it states that the result is a distance-ordered list of nearby Air Korea stations and provides a concrete use case. It lacks explicit notes on authentication or output fields, but these are less critical for a read-only lookup. The use case sentence gives enough context for correct 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 fully documents the only parameter, deviceId, as '측정기 ID' (measuring device ID) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only infers that this is the device whose nearby stations are retrieved. This is baseline value – no enhancement, no contradiction.

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 states a specific verb ('조회한다' – retrieves), a clear resource (Air Korea stations near the measuring device), and a sorting behavior ('거리순' – by distance). It also explicitly names a use case ('보정 기준국 확인에 쓴다' – used for checking calibration reference stations), which differentiates it from generic device or data-retrieval siblings. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 provides a clear usage context: it is meant for checking calibration reference stations. This tells an agent when this tool is appropriate without requiring inference. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specific use case sufficiently guides selection.

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