stat_weather_stations

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It communicates that the operation is a read-only list retrieval, but does not mention authentication needs, pagination, freshness, or whether all stations or only active stations are included. The disclosure is basic but not misleading.

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 concise sentences with no wasted text. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage purpose is stated immediately after. 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 no-parameter lookup tool, the description adequately conveys what is retrieved and why. It does not explicitly list the returned fields or mention authentication, but the stated purpose implies the important return value (stnId) and the tool's simplicity reduces the need for more detail.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema already fully documents the input. The description adds the meaningful context that the tool exists to resolve stat_weather's stnId, which is the only relevant semantic needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('기상청(KMA) 관측소 목록을 조회한다') and ties it to the exact purpose of finding stat_weather's stnId. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling list tools by naming both the source (KMA) and the intended consumer (stat_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?

Provides a clear context for use: when locating stnId for stat_weather. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the stated use case is sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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