get_urban_environment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data may be absent for some operators/stations, and that measurement timestamps (msmtDttm) accompany values. However, it does not mention error behavior, response structure, authentication, or rate limits. The extensive answer-guideline section addresses response tone but not core behavioral aspects. It adds some value beyond a bare description but lacks depth.

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 core description is concise (one line), but it is followed by a long 'answer guidelines' section that instructs how to phrase responses based on data freshness. This is more about assistant behavior than tool invocation, adding significant verbosity. While structured and purposeful, it dilutes the focus and is longer than necessary for a tool description.

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 presence of an output schema (which likely covers response structure), the description adequately explains inputs, data availability caveats, and measurement timestamp inclusion. It also provides guidance on handling empty results ('해당 데이터 없음'). Missing details like authentication or pagination are minor given the schema and the tool's scope. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It explicitly explains 'measure' with enumerated values (air_quality, temperature, humidity, noise, all) and their meanings, and clarifies 'station_name' and 'operator' (optional). This is sufficient for an agent to populate parameters correctly, though it could be more detailed about operator code formats.

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 clear verb and resource: '도시철도 역사 환경측정 정보 조회' (retrieval of urban railway station environment measurement info). It lists the specific measures (air quality, temperature, humidity, noise) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_urban_train_environment and get_urban_surroundings by focusing on environmental measurements. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a caution about data availability (some operators/stations have no sensors) but does not indicate when this tool is preferred over siblings (e.g., get_urban_surroundings or get_urban_train_environment). No exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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