get_station_track_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (CSV, date, row count) and the current_only filtering behavior, which is helpful. However, it does not mention permissions, response structure beyond listing '주요 컬럼' (main columns, implying not all), or whether multiple rows can be returned. This falls short of full transparency for a read operation with no external annotations.

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: a summary, parameter explanations, and a column list. It is slightly verbose but each part is informative. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then details. No wasted sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should fully describe the return data. It lists '주요 컬럼' (main columns) but explicitly says 'main', implying additional columns are omitted. It also does not specify the return format (e.g., JSON array) or pagination. An agent would need to infer some details, making it incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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%, so the description is the only source. It fully explains both parameters: station_name as partial match with examples and default, current_only with True/False behavior regarding history. This adds substantial 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 clearly states the tool retrieves station track and facility details ('역별 선로·시설 상세 정보 조회'), lists specific fields (effective length, track length, branch lines, etc.), and differentiates from sibling tools like get_station_facilities by focusing on track specifications. It is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 provides context ('현장 운영에 필요한 역 선로 제원 정보 제공') and explains parameter usage (partial match, current_only) but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives. It gives clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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