정류소 실시간 버스 도착예정

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a useful behavior: data may be empty outside bus operating hours. However, it does not describe response contents, error cases, or latency behavior, so some transparency gaps remain.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite and the key availability caveat, so every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with two parameters, the description plus schema covers how to obtain bsId, optional routeNo filtering, and the empty-data possibility. Without an output schema, a brief note on returned fields would make it fully complete, but nothing essential is missing for invoking the tool 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 100%, and the schema already describes bsId as a search_bus_stop result and routeNo as an optional filter. The main description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate rather than higher.

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 operation and resource: '정류소 ID(bsId) 기준 실시간 도착예정 버스 목록을 가져온다' — get the real-time expected-arrival bus list for a stop ID. This cleanly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_bus_stop (stop lookup) and get_bus_location (vehicle location) without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

It explicitly instructs callers to first find bsId via search_bus_stop and warns that data may be absent outside bus operating hours. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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