get_commute_difficulty

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states '계산합니다' (calculates), implying a read-only computation, but does not disclose any side effects, error behavior, data source, or performance characteristics. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the context (coordinates) and action (calculate difficulty), with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately concise and structured.

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 the tool has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what the result looks like, any constraints, or potential errors. It only states the calculation without clarifying the output format (e.g., a score, label, or range), leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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%, and the description only vaguely refers to '출발지와 도착지 좌표' (departure and arrival coordinates). It does not explicitly map to start_lat/start_lon and end_lat/end_lon, nor explain units, ranges, or formats. This provides a high-level semantic but fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's function: it calculates commute difficulty based on departure and arrival coordinates. The verb '계산합니다' (calculates) and resource '퇴근 난이도' (commute difficulty) are specific, and since there are no sibling tools, differentiation is not required.

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 usage when one needs commute difficulty from coordinates, but it provides no explicit context on when to use it, exclusions, or alternatives. It merely states the action without guidance on scenarios or prerequisites.

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