get_urban_timetable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses important behaviors: how data freshness should be reported based on _meta's data modification date, tone variation by recency, handling of empty results, and that express timetables may not be available for some operators. This is substantial, though it does not cover all potential behaviors such as error conditions or rate limits.

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 well organized: purpose first, then parameter semantics, then answer-response guidelines. It is longer than typical but most sentences earn their place because they define allowed values, default behavior, and critical reply instructions. Slight redundancy in the repeated warnings about not repeating disclaimers keeps it from being perfectly concise.

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?

The description covers purpose, all parameters, response freshness rules, and empty-result behavior, while an output schema exists for return-value shape. A minor gap is that station_name is only described as '역명' without clarifying whether exact names, aliases, or codes are expected, but overall the tool is well specified for an agent to call correctly.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: station_name is the station name, operator is optional code/name, day enumerates allowed values and the default, and express describes the boolean's effect and caveat. This adds meaning far beyond the raw schema property names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '도시철도 역사별 운행시각표(열차 도착·출발시각) 조회' — querying urban railway station-specific timetable with arrival/departure times. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on station info, accessibility, routes, or facilities.

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 and parameter explanations make the usage context clear: use this tool when the user needs a station-specific urban railway timetable, optionally filtered by day, operator, or express vs regular service. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls 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.