site_select

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals the stateful side effect: all later queries switch to this site. It also discloses that partial names are acceptable, which is useful behavioral information. It does not mention error cases like multiple matches, but for a simple selection tool this is a minor gap.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, followed by input flexibility rules and the state-changing consequence. Every sentence 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 single-parameter, no-output-schema selection tool, this description is fully adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does, how to provide the argument, and what side effect to expect. No critical information is missing.

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 schema already documents the single parameter as '사이트 이름 일부 또는 siteId' with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value by giving a concrete example ('부산시설공단') and explicitly confirming that only a partial name suffices, which helps an agent understand the accepted input format more concretely.

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 uses a specific verb ('바꾼다' - changes) and clear resource ('조회 대상 사이트' - the site being queried), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also clarifies the input options (partial name or exact siteId), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like site_list that only list sites, and from data query tools that use the selected site.

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 states that all subsequent queries will be based on this site, which clearly implies this tool should be invoked before running queries when the target site needs to be changed. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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