get_freight_rate

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden — and it meets it: it discloses the filtering rule for current_only (applied-end date after 2100), the valid-versus-total record counts, and the exact return fields. This gives an agent real behavioral expectations beyond a bare 'query rates' statement.

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?

Cleanly organized with Args and Returns sections, purpose front-loaded, and every line earns its place — the record-count context and the container-rate note are genuinely useful. Minor verbosity in the parentheticals but nothing disposable.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the full weight and covers return values explicitly (신청구분, 분류번호, 적용임율, etc.) plus filter semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing for a simple query 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does: every parameter is explained with concrete examples ('일반', '컨테이너', '10', '1001'), plus a non-obvious domain note that 1xxx classification numbers are container rates while 10~80 are general freight — knowledge not derivable from 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?

States a specific verb (조회/query) plus a precise resource, 철도 화물 임율 (rail freight rate on ton-km basis), and scopes it clearly. Despite many freight siblings (get_freight_minimum_fare, get_freight_items, get_freight_carriage), the ton-km rate focus sets it apart without needing any schema inspection.

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?

Documents the three filter parameters thoroughly and implies they are optional filters, but never contrasts this tool with the freight siblings, nor states when to prefer it over get_freight_minimum_fare or search_freight_code. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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