get_logistics_facility

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

With no annotations, the description takes on full responsibility. It discloses that results combine three data sources and provides data counts, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, pagination, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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—two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, filters, and return content. It includes specific data counts that add value without redundancy, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of the return content (basic info, scale, photos) and the join logic, but lacks details on response structure, pagination, or limit behavior. It is adequate but not exhaustive for an agent's full understanding.

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 must compensate. It explains station_name and region as partial-match filters and mentions the join key, but it does not explain the limit parameter. This partial coverage is adequate but not complete.

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 performs an integrated query of logistics facility information, combining basic, scale, and photo data. It uses a specific verb (조회) and resource, and the mention of integration differentiates it from general station facility tools, 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 explicitly defines the filter conditions (partial match by station name or regional headquarters name) and the join behavior. It implies the appropriate context for use but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, which is acceptable given the lack of obvious overlapping siblings.

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