get_building_wclf_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 clearly indicates this is a read operation ('조회합니다' - retrieves/reads) and describes pagination behavior through the parameters and return structure. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether all parameters are required (though schema shows none are strictly required).

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, what information is provided, parameters with detailed explanations, and return structure. While comprehensive, it's appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool with no schema descriptions. The parameter explanations are thorough but necessary given the context.

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 8 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job of explaining the tool's functionality. It covers purpose, parameters with semantics and examples, and the return structure. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but otherwise it's quite complete for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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?

The description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the 0% schema description coverage. It explains all 8 parameters with Korean descriptions, examples for most (sigungu_cd, bjdong_cd, bun, ji), and clarifies the pagination parameters with default values. This fully compensates for the complete lack of schema 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 tool's purpose: '건축물대장 오수정화시설을 조회합니다' (retrieves building registry sewage treatment facility information). It specifies the resource (sewage treatment facilities) and what information is provided (treatment type, capacity, unit). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools that also retrieve building-related 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 alternatives. With 11 sibling tools that all retrieve building-related information, there's no indication of when this specific sewage treatment facility tool should be selected over other building information tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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