decode_freight_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the single-record ('단건') nature and the code-to-names mapping, which is useful. However, it does not mention behavior for unknown/invalid codes, return format details, or any 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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The core semantic (input → output) is front-loaded and every word contributes value.

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 simple single-parameter lookup, the description covers the basic input/output relationship. But without an output schema, it would benefit from stating the expected response shape or behavior for missing codes. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 schema only specifies a 'code' parameter with a generic title. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the code is a domestic freight classification code, which is important context. However, it does not specify the expected format or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 identifies the verb (decode), the resource (domestic freight classification code), and the output (Korean/English names). It is distinct from sibling tools like decode_station_code and search_freight_code because it targets freight classification codes specifically, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for decoding a single domestic freight code into names, but it does not state conditions for choosing it over search_freight_code or decode_station_code.

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