search_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial matching and the default-all behavior, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only nature, case sensitivity, pagination, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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 brief and front-loaded, stating the core purpose first, then the default behavior, followed by examples. Every sentence adds value with no waste, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit 'when to use' guidance.

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 search tool with an output schema already present, the description covers the essential behaviors: partial match, default behavior, and examples. It lacks details like output format (covered by schema) but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does so clearly: name is a route name for partial match, with examples ('경부', '호남', 'KTX'), and states behavior when empty. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 retrieves a route code by partial route name, and provides examples. It is specific about the resource (route code) and the verb (search). While it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, the purpose is unambiguous given the examples.

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 explains behavior when name is omitted (returns all routes) but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternative search tools like search_station or other route-related tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving selection to inference.

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