get_segment_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It specifies partial-match behavior for region and station, defines the segment concept, and enumerates the return structure. It does not cover edge cases like empty filters or exact match semantics for segment_code, but provides solid behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a brief definition, parameter documentation, and return breakdown. Every line adds value with no unnecessary repetition.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple lookup tool with three optional parameters and no output schema. It explains the domain concept, all filters, and the returned fields. It does not mention behavior when no filters are provided or how filters combine, but these are minor gaps.

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%, and the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters with concrete examples and matching rules. It clearly explains what segment_code, region, and station mean in the context of this tool.

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 it retrieves railway electric train segment information and defines what a segment is. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like station info or route search tools. The verb '조회합니다' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 through its definition of a segment and its filter parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools.

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