get_building_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 effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (조회합니다), requires specific input validation (correct codes), has pagination behavior (page_no, num_of_rows), and returns structured data. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers essential operational constraints well.

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, data returned, parameters, and return format. While comprehensive, some redundancy exists (e.g., listing parameters in both description and Args section). Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage constraints, parameter semantics, and return structure. The output schema details the return format, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context rather than repeating return value details.

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. It defines all 8 parameters with examples (e.g., '11110 = 서울 종로구'), format requirements (5자리, 4자리), and default values (page_no: 1, num_of_rows: 100). This adds significant meaning 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 표제부를 조회합니다' (retrieves building registry title information). It specifies the exact resource (building registry title) and distinguishes it from siblings by listing the specific information it provides (address, area, structure, usage, etc.), unlike other tools that focus on different building aspects like floor plans or house 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: it mandates using correct codes from 'search_bjdong_code' and prohibits checking terminal logs if results are empty. It also implicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by listing the specific data it returns, helping users choose it over alternatives like 'get_building_floor_ouln_info' or 'get_building_house_price_info'.

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