get_wide_area_carriage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation ('조회', '제공합니다') and describes the returned data shape: boarding/alighting passenger counts by station and time period. It does not disclose potential limitations like pagination, result size, or data freshness, but for a simple statistics query the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and well-structured: two lead sentences establish purpose and usage context, followed by a tight bullet-style Args list where every line documents a parameter that the schema leaves undocumented. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 8 optional parameters, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and all parameter semantics with examples. The main gap is that it does not clarify required combinations or default behavior when no parameters are provided, which is relevant because all parameters are optional.

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?

The input schema provides zero descriptions (0% schema coverage), but the description fully compensates by documenting all 8 parameters with Korean labels, date semantics (run_ymd exact date vs run_ymd_gte/lte ranges), and concrete examples for codes and names. This adds substantial meaning 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 action and resource: '광역 여객열차 수송실적 조회' (wide-area passenger train transport performance inquiry) and specifies the output as boarding/alighting counts by subway station and time period. The '광역' and '전철역' scope helps distinguish it from mainline/freight carriage siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related wide-area statistics tools like get_wide_rail_station_per.

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 a clear usage context: '광역철도(수도권 전철 등) 이용 통계 조회에 사용' (used for metropolitan railway usage statistics inquiry). This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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