get_building_basis_ouln_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals this is a read operation ('조회합니다' - retrieves/reads) and describes pagination behavior through page_no and num_of_rows parameters. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether all parameters are optional (though schema shows all have defaults). The return format is documented, which is helpful.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, information scope, parameters with examples, and return format. Each sentence adds value. The parameter documentation is comprehensive but necessary given the poor schema coverage. Slightly verbose but justified by the complexity of 8 parameters needing explanation.

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 the complexity (8 parameters with 0% schema coverage) and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining parameter semantics and return format. The output schema exists (implied by the Returns section), so the description appropriately focuses on parameter meaning rather than return value details. The main gap is lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but otherwise provides substantial context for proper tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage (titles like 'Sigungu Cd' provide no semantic meaning), the description fully compensates by explaining all 8 parameters with Korean translations, format examples, and default values. It provides crucial context that the schema lacks: sigungu_cd is a 5-digit code with examples, bjdong_cd is a 5-digit legal district code, plat_gb_cd indicates land type (0: land, 1: mountain, 2: block), bun/ji are 4-digit parcel numbers, mgm_bldrgst_pk is a management building register PK, and pagination parameters have defaults.

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: '건축물대장 기본개요를 조회합니다' (retrieves building register basic overview). It specifies the resource (building register) and the type of information retrieved (basic overview including register type, classification, addresses, zones). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_building_title_info' or 'get_building_floor_ouln_info' which might retrieve different aspects of building information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that retrieve different building information aspects (title info, floor info, etc.), there's no indication of when this 'basic overview' tool is appropriate versus more specific tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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