get_lease_codes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool provides a real-time REST API, returns code tables with fields type, code, value, and describes filter behavior per parameter. This adds behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't detail response format (covered by output schema) or edge cases like empty results.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose is stated first, then structure, then parameter semantics. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema carries return details, the description is adequate for calling this tool. It covers parameters, purpose, and basic structure. Missing are explicit examples or disambiguation from other code lookups, but these are not critical for a simple lookup 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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'code_type' exact match, 'code' exact match, 'value' partial match. This is precisely the semantic meaning an agent needs.

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 states it's a 'lease system code lookup' providing 'lease-related classification code tables'. The specific verb '조회' (lookup) and resource '임대 관련 분류 코드표' (lease-related classification code table) clearly distinguishes it from sibling code tools like get_train_codes or get_transport_stat_codes.

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 doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides the purpose and filter semantics but no guidance on when other code tables are more appropriate. Usage context is implied by the tool's name and description but not explicit.

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