get_building_recap_title_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It implies this is a read-only operation through the Korean term '조회합니다' (retrieves/reads), but doesn't explicitly state safety characteristics. It does reveal pagination behavior through the page_no and num_of_rows parameters and return structure, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential error conditions.

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, data returned, parameters, and return format. While comprehensive, it's efficient with minimal redundancy. The parameter explanations are detailed but necessary given the poor schema coverage. The front-loaded purpose statement immediately communicates the tool's function.

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?

For a complex tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with output schema, the description does an excellent job compensating. It explains all parameters thoroughly, describes the return structure in detail, and clarifies what data is returned. The main gap is lack of guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools, but otherwise provides substantial context.

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 only provide parameter names without meaning), the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations in the Args section. Each parameter gets clear Korean descriptions with format examples (e.g., '시군구코드 (5자리, 예: 11110 = 서울 종로구)'), making the 8 parameters fully understandable despite the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 specific action ('조회합니다' - retrieves/reads) and resource ('건축물대장 총괄표제부' - building registry comprehensive title information), and provides a detailed list of the specific information returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on comprehensive title information rather than specific aspects like floor outlines, house prices, or exposure 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 the many sibling tools (11 alternatives). It doesn't explain what differentiates this comprehensive title information from other building registry queries, nor does it mention prerequisites, required parameters, or typical use cases for this specific data.

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