get_wide_rail_route_per

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It reveals the update cadence (monthly on the 26th, M-1), which is useful, but says nothing about output format, sorting, filtering behavior, or data granularity beyond line-level. For a stats tool, this is thin.

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 a single compact sentence followed by parameter annotations. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately clarifies the two parameters. No extraneous text; every element earns its place.

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 simplicity (2 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential input semantics. However, without annotations, it lacks behavioral context such as whether data is historical, how missing values are handled, or any prerequisites. This is a moderate gap for a data-retrieval tool.

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 compensates by explicitly defining both parameters: run_ym=운행연월(YYYYMM) and sbwy_ln_nm=전철선명. This adds meaning the schema lacks. It doesn't give enums or constraints, but the semantic mapping is clear and helpful.

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 clearly states the tool provides passenger statistics by line for wide-area railway (광역철도 노선별 이용인원 통계). It includes the two parameters with meanings, making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_mainline_route_per or get_wide_rail_station_per, but the resource and scope are specific enough.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus the many similar sibling tools (e.g., get_mainline_route_per, get_wide_rail_station_per). No context about typical use cases or exclusions is provided. The only extra hint is the update schedule, which is not usage guidance.

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