get_building_floor_ouln_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes critical behavioral traits: the data mixing risk with multi-building complexes, pagination behavior (page_no, num_of_rows parameters), and the return format. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling scenarios.

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, important guidelines, parameter explanations, and return format. While comprehensive, it could be more concise - some guideline details could potentially be streamlined. Every sentence adds value, but the overall length is substantial for a tool description.

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, no schema descriptions, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, critical usage guidelines, detailed parameter semantics, and behavioral considerations. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on usage context rather than repeating return structure.

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 detailed parameter semantics. Each parameter is explained with examples (sigungu_cd: 11110 = Seoul Jongno-gu), format requirements (5-digit codes), and critical usage notes (mgm_bldrgst_pk is mandatory for multi-building complexes to avoid data mixing). Default values are also specified for page_no and num_of_rows.

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 층별개요를 조회합니다' (retrieves building register floor overview). It specifies the exact resource (building register floor information) and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on floor-specific details like 층구분, 층번호, 구조, 용도, 면적 (floor classification, floor number, structure, purpose, area).

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 explicit guidance on when and how to use this tool. It warns about data mixing issues with multi-building complexes and specifies that mgm_bldrgst_pk is mandatory for such cases. It also directs users to sibling tools (smart_building_lookup, get_building_title_info) to obtain necessary parameters and explicitly tells users not to search terminal logs but to call APIs properly.

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