get_freight_minimum_fare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well beyond a bare statement: it reveals historical data is included, defines current_only as filtering to entries with an end date after 2100, and lists the returned fields. The term '조회' implies a read operation, though it does not spell out read-only behavior explicitly.

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 opens with a concise purpose statement and then uses clearly organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds semantic value, and there is no redundant or filler 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?

For a simple read tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essential information: filters, defaults, and return columns. It is only slightly incomplete in not addressing when to prefer this over similar freight-rate siblings and in omitting empty/error behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: fare_type with an example, classification_no with example values, and current_only with precise conditional semantics. No parameter is left undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('조회합니다' for freight minimum fare standard info) and includes the notable detail that 7 records including historical history are returned. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling get_freight_rate, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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. The Args section explains parameter defaults and the current_only filter, but there is no mention of when this tool should be chosen over related freight or rate tools.

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