get_mainline_carriage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not mention read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. It also doesn't describe the return format or how filters interact. This is a notable gap for a data retrieval tool.

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: a two-sentence overview followed by a structured parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and organizes details clearly. 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?

For a tool with 7 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and parameter meanings. However, it does not clarify interactions between run_ymd and run_ymd_gte/lte (e.g., does run_ymd override the range?), nor does it state whether any parameters are required for a meaningful query. These ambiguities could lead to incorrect calls, though the output schema likely clarifies return values.

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%, but the description's Args section fully compensates. Each parameter is explained with format examples (e.g., YYYYMMDD for dates, '01'=Gyeongbu line, '3900023'=Seoul) and semantics. This is highly valuable and goes beyond 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 states a clear purpose: querying mainline passenger train transportation performance, providing station-wise boarding/alighting counts. It distinguishes this from siblings that focus on stations, routes, or ticketing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb and resource are specific.

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 implies usage: if you need station-wise passenger counts, this is the tool. It also lists filter dimensions (date, line, station). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this versus the many sibling tools like get_mainline_station_per, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives.

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