list_stations_by_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry all behavioral info. It discloses that the match is partial and lists valid example values, which is useful. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. For a simple list tool, the description is adequate but not fully 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 short, with the primary purpose stated first, followed by a list of valid values and an example. Every sentence contributes meaning, and there is no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 a single parameter and an output schema (which already describes the returned fields), the description covers essential usage: the parameter semantics, partial-match behavior, and typical values. It does not edge cases like invalid input or empty results, but for a low-complexity tool with an output schema, this is reasonably complete.

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 only a string with no description, so the description adds significant value by explaining that 'region' is a regional headquarters name, supports partial matching, and gives concrete examples (e.g., '서울', '부산경남'). This goes beyond the schema and helps an agent populate the parameter correctly.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'stations under jurisdiction of a regional headquarters name' with partial-match semantics. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_station (station-name search) and get_station_location (location-based) by specifying the regional-HQ input. The examples make the scope unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you have a regional HQ name) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks guidance such as 'use search_station for station names' or 'use get_station_location for geographic queries.' The partial-match note helps but does not substitute for direct routing.

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