get_consultation_departments

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It does convey the filter behavior (partial match) and the output fields, but it does not mention the effect of an empty headquarter parameter, ordering, pagination, or any required permissions. For a simple read operation this is acceptable, but it lacks richness given zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences plus a compact parameter hint. Purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value—no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-type details are covered elsewhere. The description provides the primary selection criteria (headquarter) and what fields to expect. A slight gap is not stating that an empty headquarter returns all departments, but this is inferable; overall it's complete for a straightforward list 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the headquarter parameter undocumented. The description steps in by explaining it as a '본부명 부분일치 필터' (partial-match filter) with concrete examples, giving the agent the meaning and usage beyond the raw 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 opens with a specific verb-object pair: '철도 고객센터 담당 부서(역) 목록 조회' (retrieve list of customer-center departments/stations). It also names the exact fields returned (headquarter, center name, display name), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_consultation_types or get_support_departments.

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 explicit comparison to alternatives is provided. The name and description imply it is for consultation-department data, and the filter example gives a sense of when to use it, but there is no stated exclusion (e.g., 'for other department lists use X'). It's adequate but leaves the routing decision mostly to the agent's inference.

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