get_station_facilities_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the data source, data vintage, station count, partial-match behavior, default full-return behavior, and the specific quantities covered. It does not discuss response size or potential performance implications, but the output schema covers return shape.

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 core content is well front-loaded: purpose, data date, station count, and query semantics appear early. However, the Korean description is followed by redundant EN and JA translations that restate the same information, adding length without new useful detail for an AI agent.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, this description is complete: it covers data source, snapshot date, scope, filtering semantics, default behavior, and the facility types included. The only minor gap is not naming a sibling tool explicitly, but the trade-off note gives enough directional guidance.

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%, so the description must compensate—and it does fully. It explains that station_name is a partial match with examples ('서울', '광명') and that omitting it returns all stations, adding essential meaning the empty schema description lacks.

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 identifies the operation ('역사 내외부 시설현황 조회') and the resource (detailed station facilities for 288 stations), with a specific list of included facility types and quantities. It also distinguishes itself from the convenience-facility API by noting richer quantity information but a fixed data date, helping an agent tell it apart from nearby siblings.

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 gives clear context: station_name is a partial-match filter, no input returns all stations, and the data is fixed as of 2024.12.31. It implies a trade-off versus the B551457 convenience-facility API—richer quantity data but less current—though it does not name the sibling tool explicitly or give a direct 'when not to use' rule.

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