get_facility_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves data (read-only behavior is implied) but does not disclose any other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose with a clear verb and resource. Every word is necessary, and no extraneous information is present.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it does not mention return format or any pagination, which is acceptable for a simple get-by-ID 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 parameter 'facility_sn' has no description in the input schema (0% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying that it is a facility serial number (시설 일련번호) with alternative names sn/fcltSn, which helps the agent understand the parameter beyond the 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 verb 'retrieve', the input (facility serial number), and the output (detailed information and attachment metadata). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'search_facilities' by specifying retrieval by a single ID, but does not explicitly contrast with other 'get_*' tools.

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 implies usage when a facility serial number is known, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools such as 'search_facilities' for searching or 'get_institution_profile' for institutions.

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