get_building_expos_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by: 1) Clearly indicating this is a read-only query operation ('조회합니다'), 2) Describing pagination behavior with page_no and num_of_rows parameters, 3) Specifying the return structure including pagination metadata. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but covers core behavioral aspects adequately.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement, scope clarification, filtering capability note, and organized parameter/return sections. The Korean-only text may limit accessibility, but within that constraint, it's efficiently organized with no redundant information.

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 10 parameters with no schema descriptions, an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description provides complete context: purpose, parameter meanings with examples, filtering capabilities, pagination behavior, and return structure. It adequately compensates for all gaps in structured data.

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, the description fully compensates by providing: 1) Korean translations and meanings for all 10 parameters, 2) Format examples (5-digit codes, 4-digit bun/ji), 3) Filtering explanations for dong_nm and ho_nm, 4) Default values for page_no and num_of_rows. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 전유부를 조회합니다' (retrieves building register exclusive use information). It specifies the exact resource (building register exclusive use part) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on specific address and unit information rather than other building aspects like floor outlines, prices, or titles.

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 implies usage through parameter explanations (filtering by dong/ho) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't compare to sibling tools like 'get_building_title_info' or 'search_bjdong_code' for different use cases.

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