list_stations_with_elevator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the real-time API nature and notes that field changes may not be immediately reflected, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only nature, ordering, or any other behavioral traits, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise, with the core purpose stated in Korean, English, and Japanese, followed by a single relevant caveat. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it highly efficient for multilingual agents.

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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It identifies the data source and freshness limitation, and the output schema covers return values. It lacks any mention of ordering or pagination, but these are unlikely to be critical for such a 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameter details, and it does not add any beyond what the schema implies. This is adequate for a parameterless tool.

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 action (list) and the resource (stations with elevators), and provides multilingual translations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_station_facilities or list_stations_by_region, which cover different scopes. The specific resource name is 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or references to siblings that handle similar station queries. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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