get_urban_accessibility

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does explain how to handle data timestamps (based on _meta '데이터수정일') and tells the agent to report empty results explicitly ('해당 데이터 없음'). It also constrains the 'all' facility_type to 1-3 specific stations. However, it doesn't mention other behaviors like rate limits, authentication, or result structure (though an output schema exists).

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 lengthy, with the facility_type list and a separate block of answer guidelines. It is organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the answer instructions (tone, repetition, phone-number rules) are verbose and could be streamlined. While every part adds some value, it lacks the brevity of top-tier descriptions.

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 query tool with an output schema, the description covers essential context: what facility types exist, the station name required, and the operator parameter. It also includes critical usage constraints (e.g., 'all' only for 1-3 stations) and response rules for data freshness and empty results. These details make it sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly, though it doesn't address authentication or other operational aspects.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0% and there are no enums, the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It fully documents facility_type with all options and Korean labels, explains station_name and operator, and even adds usage constraints for 'all'. This is exemplary compensation for the schema's lack of detail.

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 urban railway station accessibility facilities for transportation-disadvantaged users ('도시철도 역사 접근성 시설 조회 (교통약자)'). It enumerates facility types, which specifies the resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_accessible_facilities or list_stations_with_elevator, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The extensive answer guidelines about data timestamps and tone are about response formatting, not selection criteria. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool over its siblings.

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