get_wagon_by_weight_class

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the as-of date, the 70 weight, the filter behavior (only rows with ownership > 0), the meaning of min/max weight, and the default of returning all rows when parameters are omitted. This is comprehensive for a-only lookup, though it does not address rate limits or error conditions.

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 main purpose and then clearly breaks down each parameter on a separate line. It is not excessively long and every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter without losing information.

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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all essential operational details: filter semantics, default behavior, and the data scope. Minor omissions (e.g., whether/max weights are inclusive) are not critical for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain each. It does so thoroughly: wagon_type with examples and the condition that only rows with positive ownership are returned, min_weight and max_weight with example values, and the default behavior when not entered. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 explicitly states the tool queries wagon ownership by weight class, specifies the as-of date and the 70 weight sections, and lists the wagon types included. This is a specific verb (조회) + resource (wagon ownership) + clear scope, making it easy for an agent to from the sibling get_wagon_by_load_capacity.

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 gives clear usage context (filters and default behavior) but does not mention when to use this tool versus the sibling get_wagon_by_load_capacity Given the naming similarity explicit guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives is missing.

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