get_urban_amenity

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

Annotations carry nothing, so the description bears the full burden and does well: '조회' signals read-only, and the detailed data-recency reporting rules (recent vs. old modification date tones, single notice based on oldest dataset, don't fabricate empty results) disclose real behavioral traits beyond any structured field. Slightly verbose but substantive.

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?

Purpose and parameters are front-loaded, which is good. But the answer-guidelines block is long and somewhat repetitive — the 'single notice / don't repeat' rule is stated more than once, and the phone-number policy is over-qualified. Every sentence earns its place but it could be tighter.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered, and the description documents all parameters plus detailed presentation rules including empty-result handling. The only gaps are unaddressed operational details like rate limits or error conditions, which are minor for a lookup tool.

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% yet the description fully documents all three parameters: amenity_type with all valid values, station_name semantics, and operator as optional code/name. It even supplies the enum set that the schema lacks. This is textbook compensation for an undocumented 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?

States a specific verb+resource: '도시철도 역사 편의시설 조회' (urban railway station amenity lookup), and enumerates the exact amenity types (toilet, nursing_room, locker, atm, lost_found, wifi, all). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_urban_safety or get_urban_environment, whose scope is different, even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool versus the many get_urban_* / get_station_facilities siblings. However, the description gives substantial answer-formatting guidance (data-recency tone, not repeating the notice, saying '해당 데이터 없음' when empty), which helps the agent use results correctly. Tool-selection guidance is missing, so not a 4.

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