get_hazardous_cargo

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the data source (local CSV), as-of date, the two-table integration, and the matching semantics (partial vs exact). However, it does not mention the return format, error behavior, or performance implications, which would be useful. For a read-only query tool, the provided info is adequate but leaves some 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 appropriately sized and structured. It opens with the core purpose, then lists parameters in a clear dash-bullet format, and closes with a useful grade legend. The grade legend is slightly tangential but helpful for parameter values. Overall, every part serves a purpose, though it could be tightened slightly by moving the legend into the grade parameter description.

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 a moderate complexity (joining two tables), the description explains how to query but omits what the response looks like (fields, structure). It also doesn't specify pagination or total result counts beyond the limit parameter. This is a notable gap for an agent needing to interpret results, but for a simple lookup it's not severely impaired.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains all three parameters (query, grade, limit) with concrete examples ('가스', '아세틸렌', '1001'), grade mapping, and a default limit value. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving hazardous cargo information from a local CSV (as of 2025.09.15), integrating two specific tables. This is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which relate to hazardous materials, so there's no ambiguity about what it does.

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 detailed usage for each parameter (query, grade, limit) with examples and default values, which effectively guides the agent in invoking the tool. While it doesn't explicitly state 'use this when you need hazardous cargo data,' the unique domain among siblings makes this implicit, and the parameter-level guidance is strong.

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