Daily subway ridership statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data availability lag (2-4 days ago) and describes the output as per-station boarding/alighting counts. It does not mention operational details like rate limits, but for a read-only data lookup this is sufficient.

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 somewhat repetitive with the bilingual phrasing (English and Korean) and an example query, but it remains compact and front-loaded with the core action. It earns a 4 for being efficient despite minor redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool returns and its limitations. It could explicitly list return fields, but 'boarding/alighting counts' and station/line filters are clear enough for a data retrieval 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters (date pattern, line partial match, limit range, station partial match). The description adds a usage example but no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'per-station daily subway boarding/alighting counts for a date', which clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_subway_arrivals by focusing on daily boarding/alighting instead of real-time arrivals.

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 clear context: data available up to 2-4 days ago and an example query for daily passenger counts. It does not explicitly exclude real-time use or name alternatives, but the phrasing implies historical ridership queries rather than live arrivals.

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