search_operation_patterns

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the crucial semantic trap that routes are operation systems, not physical lines, and explains the meaning of the electric_only parameter. It also lists return fields, but does not mention pagination, response size, or any other runtime behavior; overall, this is strong disclosure for a simple 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 front-loaded with the search purpose and total count, immediately followed by the most important disambiguation warning. The Args/Returns sections are compact and every sentence adds useful information; there is no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter optional search tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it defines both parameters, the return columns, and the key domain misinterpretation. It could be slightly more complete by providing a concrete example or clarifying whether results are paginated, but nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking the 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%, but the description fully compensates: it explains query as ROUT_CD/ROUT_NM partial match, notes that omitting query returns all results, and clarifies the KTX naming nuance ('고속', '경부고속' rather than 'KTX'). It also precisely documents the tri-state behavior of electric_only, exceeding what the bare schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching nationwide railway route information, with a total count. It goes further by distinguishing the domain meaning of '노선' as a train operation system code rather than a physical track, which separates it from sibling tools like search_route or get_station_track_info.

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 clear context on how to use it: query can be partial and optional, electric_only has tri-state semantics, and an explicit warning says infrastructure-based questions like 'how many non-electrified lines are there' will produce inflated numbers. It stops short of naming alternative tools to use instead, so it does not fully meet the 'when-not-to-use with alternatives' bar.

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