get_urban_platform

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers substantial detail: disclose data recency based on _meta's 데이터수정일, adjust tone/verbosity by date (recent vs old), avoid repeating notices, include phone numbers only when asked or in emergencies, and honestly report missing results rather than fabricating. This is meaningful, actionable behavioral context beyond any schema.

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 is front-loaded in the first line, followed by brief parameter notes. The bulk is the answer guideline block, which is verbose but each rule is specific and actionable (recency line vs warning line, single-notice rule, empty-result honesty). Somewhat long, but no wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value handling need not be spelled out, and params plus behavioral presentation rules are thoroughly covered. The major gap is selection context: among the dense cluster of get_urban_* siblings (station_info, accessibility, exit_info, safety), nothing tells the agent when platform data is the right answer. For correct invocation this distinction is essential.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: station_name is defined as 역명 (station name) and operator as 운영기관 코드/명 (operator code/name) with an explicit '(선택)' optionality marker matching the schema default. This adds meaning the bare schema lacks, though only briefly.

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?

Description opens with '도시철도 역사 승강장 정보 조회' (urban railway station platform info inquiry) plus specific data types (승강장 유형·복합여부·안전발판 - platform type, complexity, safety footboard). This is a specific verb+resource with concrete content. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_urban_station_info or get_urban_accessibility, relying on the word 'platform' to differentiate by implication.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the 80+ sibling tools, particularly the overlapping get_urban_station_info, get_urban_accessibility, and get_urban_safety. The [답변 지침] section covers data-recency presentation rules, not tool selection context. An agent cannot determine whether a station query should hit this tool or its siblings.

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