get_ktx_stations

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the result count (총 102건), the return fields (고속철도명, 철도운영기관, 노선명, 순번, 역명, 주소(도로명) 목록), and the partial-match filtering behavior for both parameters. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention error conditions or side effects, which is a gap given the lack of annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, an Args block with each parameter explained individually, and a Returns block. No redundant or filler content. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 lookup tool with two optional filters, the description is nearly complete. It states what is returned, how to filter, and the total record count. The only minor omission is an explicit note that results are limited to KTX stations (though that is evident from the name) and no mention of error behavior, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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. It does so excellently: line_name is explained with examples ('경부선', '호남선', '경전선') and the default behavior (없으면 전체), while station_name similarly provides examples ('서울', '부산', '광명') and default (없으면 필터 없음). This adds far more meaning than the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'KTX 노선별 역 정보(역명, 도로명주소, 정차 순번)를 조회합니다', specifying the verb (조회), resource (KTX 노선별 역 정보), and the exact fields returned. This effectively differentiates it from generic station tools like search_station or list_stations_by_region, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many station-related siblings. It only explains the two optional filters and their defaults, leaving the agent to infer that this is KTX-specific. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternative mentions are provided.

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