get_operation_distance

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: initial call parsing delay, data source limitations (only stations in the specific XLSX, KTX-only), and exact-match/partial-match handling. It is transparent about side effects and edge cases, though it does not state that the operation is read-only (implied by '조회'). Slightly below a 5 due to minor omissions like error behavior.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, caveat, args, returns) and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, including the relevant example (Seoul–Busan KTX) and the latency note. No fluff.

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 and 3 optional parameters, the description explains all return variations (no line_name, line_name only, with from_station, with both) and notes the parsing delay. It even clarifies the data source scope. For a query tool of this complexity, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, and the description fully compensates: line_name is partial match with examples, from_station and to_station are exact match, and the behavior for each parameter combination is described in the Returns section. This adds comprehensive meaning 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 specific verb and resource ('전국 철도 노선별 역간 운행거리를 조회합니다') and clarifies it is actual track distance (운행거리) distinct from fare-calculation shortest distance. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_station_distance without ambiguity.

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 explains that the tool returns operation distance, not passenger shortest distance, and warns about the KTX-dedicated-line data coverage. This implies when to use it (actual track distance), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give a when-not-to-use statement. Adequate but not fully explicit.

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