get_transport_stat_codes

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 that calling without parameters may return 0 results and recommends code_type. However, it doesn't mention return format, pagination, authentication, or how multiple parameters interact (AND/OR). It adds some behavioral context but leaves important traits undisclosed.

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 structured with a header, a legacy-name note, an Args section, and a caution. It is concise enough, though the legacy-name note adds some verbosity. The most critical usage info (parameter requirement) is front-loaded in the caution.

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?

Given the tool is a straightforward code lookup with an output schema available, the description covers the essential usage and parameter behavior. It doesn't discuss multiple-parameter combination semantics, but the output schema presumably defines the response. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to make a correct first call.

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 descriptions, so the description fully compensates. For each parameter it gives meaning and concrete examples: code_type ('stn_cd', 'mrnt_cd', 'sbwy_ln_cd'), code (exact match with example '3900023'), and value (partial match with examples '서울', '경부'). This goes beyond the bare schema types.

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 action ('조회' - inquire) and resource (transport performance statistics codes for trunk/metropolitan/freight transport). It distinguishes itself from generic code tools by specifying the scope, but doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 usage guidance: it states that at least one parameter must be provided to get results and recommends specifying code_type. However, it does not discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_train_codes or search_freight_code, so the 'when-not' aspect is missing.

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