search_consignment_change

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the data source is a local CSV with 4,015 records and implies read-only search. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, return format, or whether filters are exact or fuzzy. The total count and source are useful, but more behavioral details are missing for a search tool.

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 concise, with three short lines that immediately convey purpose and data source, followed by a clear list of filters. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides core information: purpose, data source, total count, and filters. However, it fails to mention typical aspects like default ordering, limit behavior, or how results are returned. It also does not differentiate from the sibling tool, which is a notable gap for correct routing.

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 coverage is 0% because parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The description compensates by explaining three of the four parameters (station, waybill_no, change_type) with Korean labels and intent. The limit parameter is only implicitly present via the default in the schema, not explained. Overall, the description adds meaningful semantic meaning beyond the bare property names.

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 searches for consignment change fees (수탁변경요금) and explains they are fee histories for condition changes after waybill acceptance. It lists the key filters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool search_consignment_change_per_wagon, though the phrase '건별' (per case) hints at a per-case scope rather than per-wagon.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists filters but does not state any conditions or context for selection, nor does it mention the existence of the closely related sibling search_consignment_change_per_wagon. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and general search context.

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