get_urban_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses data-freshness behavior (using _meta data modification time), tone rules by recency, and the instruction not to fabricate empty results. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not cover side effects or call-level quirks.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, and parameter guidance is compact. The answer-guideline block is long but earns its place because it prevents recency misstatements and hallucination. It could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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 2-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, data recency, formatting, and empty-result handling. It does not state whether either parameter is required or what happens when both are omitted, but that gap is minor against the overall coverage.

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%, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does: line with examples ('1','A1','I1','1호선','경의중앙'), region with named areas and code ranges, plus the precision note for metropolitan lines. This goes well beyond the bare 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?

The description states a specific verb ('조회'), resource ('도시철도 노선 전체 역 구성'), and ordering ('상행~하행 순서'). The phrase '역 무관, 노선 단위' explicitly distinguishes this route-level tool from station-level siblings such as get_urban_station_info or search_urban_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?

It gives concrete usage context: line accepts a code or partial name, region accepts a named area or codes 01–05, and metropolitan lines benefit from adding region. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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