get_accessible_facilities

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 discloses the real-time nature and notes that on-site changes may not be immediately reflected. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, read-only nature (though implied by '조회'), or behavior on empty results. It adds some transparency but leaves gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It then provides parameter details and a note about data recency. The multilingual translations (KR/EN/JA) add length but are useful for diverse agents. The structure is logical, though the translations could be trimmed without losing critical content.

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 (single parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, parameter semantics, and a data-lag caveat. It does not address how to handle ambiguous station names or when to prefer this over closely related siblings. Given the richness of nearby tools, this is a significant gap, though not fatal.

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 input schema has no description for the parameter (coverage 0%). The description compensates by explaining that station_name supports partial match and provides examples ('서울', '부산'). This adds meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't clarify case sensitivity, multiple matches, or expected formats. It's helpful but not exhaustive.

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 '조회' (lookup) and the resource, accessible facilities by station name, listing the specific facility types (wheelchair lift, accessible ramp, accessible restroom). It is specific enough to distinguish from many siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The mention of '실시간 API' and partial match adds clarity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_urban_amenity or get_station_facilities, which likely overlap. It doesn't mention exclusions or conditions. The only usage hint is the partial-match parameter explanation, which is not about tool selection. This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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