get_train_codes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the minimum parameter requirement and matching behavior, but does not clarify the relationship between parameters (e.g., whether code_type is required when using code or value), nor does it mention any limitations or side effects. For a lookup tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by parameter requirements and examples. It contains no filler or redundant information, and every line adds value.

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 output schema covers the return format, so that is not required. The description explains parameters and usage constraints, but leaves some ambiguity about how parameters interact (e.g., whether multiple parameters are combined with AND or OR, and whether code_type is needed when using code or value). For a tool of this complexity, it is mostly complete but could benefit from clarifying these interactions.

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 zero description coverage, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It clearly defines each parameter (code_type with examples like stn_cd, mrnt_cd; code for exact match; value for partial match) and even lists common code_type values. This fully compensates for the schema's silence and is highly useful for an agent.

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 train operation code information ('열차운행 코드정보 조회') with specific examples of code types. It is distinct from siblings like decode_station_code or search_station, but does not explicitly differentiate itself, which would have earned a 5.

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?

It specifies the requirement of at least one parameter and explains the matching semantics for code (exact) and value (partial). However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like decode_station_code or search_station, nor does it describe any alternative or when-not-to-use scenario.

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