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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns extra credit by disclosing the shape and breadth of the payload (profile fields + per-size estimates, trades, listing count, asking-price range, absorption period), which is valuable since there is no output schema.

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 core resource and its fields are front-loaded in the first clause. The Korean sentence largely restates the English one, which costs some space, though it does add '매물 소화 기간' (listing absorption period) that the English omits.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly across both profile and pricing dimensions. Minor gaps remain around error behavior for an invalid or stale danji_id, but for a single-object read this is close to sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it fully with 100% coverage ('7자리 단지 ID from search_apartments'). The description adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail about danji_id, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names the concrete resource — an apartment complex profile plus per-floor-plan prices — and enumerates exactly which fields are returned (households, completion date, builder, FAR, parking, estimated sale/jeonse, latest trade, listings). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_recent_trades or get_fair_asking_price by content, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when' statement or named alternative. The only usage signal is indirect: the schema notes danji_id comes from search_apartments, implying a search-then-overview flow. Usable but left to inference.

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