export_cadastral_dxf_by_pnu

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the export is 'for reference' (참고용), implying non-authoritative output, which is useful additional context beyond annotations.

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, focused sentence with all critical information front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, no filler.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately mentions the output format (DXF) and purpose. It covers the main behavioral aspects and parameter guidance. Minor gap: no detail on file naming or return structure, but acceptable for a well-annotated 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value beyond schema by instructing the agent to ask the user if bufferMeters is not specified, and it mentions the default of 50m. This addresses a key usage nuance.

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's purpose: exporting parcel boundaries to DXF using a 19-digit PNU. It includes context (based on continuous cadastral map, for reference) and differentiates from siblings like 'export_cadastral_dxf' by specifying the PNU input.

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 guideline: ask the user if bufferMeters is unspecified. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to use this over alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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