get_urban_safety

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it instructs the agent to base data-freshness disclosure on _meta's '데이터수정일' or '측정시점', to vary tone by recency, not to repeat notices, and to state '해당 데이터 없음' rather than fabricate empty results. This adds real behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not mention auth, rate limits, or side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by compact parameter documentation and a structured answer guideline block. The length is justified by the behavioral instructions, and there is little redundancy, though the guidance could be slightly tightened 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the required parameter, enumerates safety types, explains optionality, and specifies important response behavior around data recency and empty results. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. The main gap is the absence of explicit guidance for choosing this tool among the many facility-related sibling tools.

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. It explains station_name (역명), operator (운영기관 코드/명, optional), and safety_type with all allowed values and Korean labels. It does not provide examples or format details for operator codes, but it meaningfully expands on the bare schema properties.

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 opening phrase '도시철도 역사 안전시설 조회' clearly identifies a specific verb (조회/inquiry), a resource (urban railway station safety facilities), and a distinct scope. The enumerated safety_type values further narrow the purpose and separate it from nearby sibling tools like get_station_facilities or get_urban_amenity.

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 description implies the tool is for querying urban railway station safety facilities, and it explains the role of each parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling alternatives are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the purpose statement and name.

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