get_wide_rail_station_per

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 mentions the update frequency (monthly M-1) which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is (though there is an output schema), whether parameters are required or optional (schema shows defaults), or any pagination/limits. This is insufficient for a data retrieval tool lacking annotation safety hints.

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 very short and front-loads the key purpose, followed by parameter definitions. It includes essential information like the update cadence without any fluff. The structure is efficient, though it could be slightly more organized by separating usage context from parameter mapping.

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 (two parameters, output schema present) and the fact that parameter semantics are covered, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not mention any constraints (e.g., whether stn_nm can be partial, whether run_ym must be in the past, or behavior when no data exists). The update schedule is included, but the overall context for agents is minimal, especially considering the large sibling set.

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. It does exactly that by explaining run_ym as operation year-month in YYYYMM format and stn_nm as station name. This adds meaningful semantic information beyond the raw schema, which only provides property names and defaults. The explanation is concise but adequate for parameters.

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 resource (wide-area railway stations) and the metric (boarding/alighting statistics). It distinguishes from mainline and other railway types via the term '광역철도' (wide-area railway), and also provides an update schedule. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tool for comparison, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many similar sibling tools (e.g., get_mainline_station_per, get_wide_rail_route_per). The description only states what it does and how parameters are formatted, but not the context in which an agent should choose it. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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