대구 주차장 실시간 여유/혼잡 조회

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a key trait: parking lots without real-time info (hasRealtime=true) return only static data, and it itemizes returned content (details, real-time status, remaining spaces). It does not discuss response shape or errors, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Three dense sentences: the first states the resource and result set, the second names the filters, and the third clarifies a conditional behavior. No redundant phrases or filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete for invocation: it names the data source, the returned fields, the optional filters, and the real-time vs static fallback. It does not specify pagination or result ordering, but the optional limit parameter and filter semantics are sufficiently covered.

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 repeats that gu and name act as narrowing filters and adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond the schema, which already documents example values and the limit default.

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?

States a specific operation and resource: it retrieves Daegu parking-lot details (location/fees) plus real-time congestion and remaining spaces from the integrated parking information system. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which target bus stops, routes, arrivals, locations, and road traffic.

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 gives clear context: use it for parking-lot lookups in Daegu, optionally filtered by district name or parking-lot keyword. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative conditions, though the domain separation from bus/road siblings makes the intended use obvious.

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