get_building_jijigu_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates this is a read operation ('조회합니다' - retrieves) and describes pagination behavior (page_no, num_of_rows, total_count). However, it doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether all parameters are required. The return format is described but without details about error responses or edge cases.

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, additional context about what information is provided, then clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the Korean-only text might limit accessibility for non-Korean agents. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining parameters and return values. The output schema exists (Returns section), so the description appropriately focuses on semantics rather than structure. Missing elements include authentication requirements and error handling, but for a read-only query tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 explanations with examples (sigungu_cd: '5자리, 예: 11110 = 서울 종로구'), clarifying data formats, lengths, and meanings. All 8 parameters receive clear semantic explanations beyond what the bare schema titles provide.

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 with specific verb ('조회합니다' - retrieves/consults) and resource ('건축물대장 지역지구구역' - building registry regional/district/zoning information). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on zoning classifications rather than other building attributes like addresses, floors, or prices.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other building information tools, or any constraints on usage. The agent must infer usage from the parameter structure alone.

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