get_station_distance

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses performance (initial load takes seconds, max 200 records), indexing limitation (only departure-based lookup, no reverse query), and semantic distinction (fare-basis vs actual distance) with a concrete example. This is exceptionally transparent about constraints and data characteristics.

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 (Args, Returns, notes). Every sentence adds value: parameter explanations, return field list, performance caveat, and distance semantics. It is informative without redundancy, and the most critical purpose is stated first.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It lists return fields, total record count, maximum result limit, initial load time, indexing limitation, and defines the semantic of '여객최단운행거리' vs actual track distance. This covers all necessary context for an agent to call the tool correctly and interpret results.

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?

The schema has no descriptions, so the description compensates fully. Each parameter is explained: from_station (exact recommended, partial matches), to_station (partial match, absence returns all segments), current_only (default true, filters to current data). This exceeds what the schema provides and enables correct usage.

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 queries the shortest operating distance between two stations, distinguishing passenger and freight distances and including via-station information. It uses a specific verb ('조회') and resource ('두 역 간 최단 운행거리'). Among the large sibling list, this tool is uniquely about station-to-station distance, and the description clarifies its scope, making it easy to differentiate.

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 when to use the tool (for distance between stations) and includes behavior for optional parameters (e.g., if to_station is omitted, returns all segments from departure). It also warns that the distance is fare-basis, not actual track distance, implicitly distinguishing it from get_operation_distance. However, it does not explicitly state 'use X for actual distance' or 'when not to use this tool', though context implies alternatives.

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