get_building_facilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation via '조회' and adds context on the type of data (sprinkler installation). However, it does not disclose any pagination behavior, required parameters, or response format beyond the literal purpose.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the example adds clarity without bloat.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but lacks any mention of the required 'sido' parameter or the optional buildingName filter beyond schema. It is minimally complete but not richer than necessary.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example of facility types but does not clarify any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already 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?

Describes a specific query ('소방시설 현황 조회' - fire facility status inquiry) for a specific resource (특정소방대상물 - specific firefighting targets), with an example (스프링클러 설치 여부). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_fire_stats or get_ems_stats.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like search_fire_building or search_fire_stats are not mentioned, and no context is given about the preferred scenarios for this tool.

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