get_urban_exit_info

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 identifies the operation as a read/inquiry (조회) implying no side effects, and it includes detailed response behavior guidelines (adapting tone based on _meta's data modification date, not fabricating missing data). However, it does not disclose potential limitations like authentication requirements or rate limits, which would be atypical for a query tool.

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 verbose. After the clear one-sentence purpose and brief param definitions, it includes a lengthy block of answer-guide instructions about timestamp handling and tone. While relevant, these rules could be condensed or moved to a referenced section, and the overall length exceeds what is typical for a tool definition.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers the essential invocation aspects: purpose, parameter meanings, and key response behavior (including empty-result handling). It lacks explicit usage alternatives or prerequisites, but the tool is self-contained and callable with the provided information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explicitly defines both parameters: station_name as the station name and operator as the operating agency code/name (optional). This adds meaning beyond the bare string types in the schema. It lacks format examples or value restrictions, but it sufficiently clarifies the purpose of each parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('조회' - retrieve/inquire) and a concrete resource ('도시철도 역사 출구정보' - urban railway station exit information), listing the exact fields (출구번호, 주변시설, 거리). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_urban_transfer_info and get_urban_platform, which cover different aspects of a station.

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 purpose statement makes it obvious that this tool is for exit information, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its many siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Usage is implied rather than articulated.

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