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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing the return contents (estimated range per floor band, quick-sale level, reference week, listing count) — the 'reference week' being a useful temporal-validity hint absent from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core resource and scope, then the usage trigger. Some bilingual redundancy since the Korean restates the English, but overall appropriately sized and each part maps to a needed detail.

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 2-parameter read-only query with no output schema, the description supplies the return dimensions the schema can't, and annotations cover safety. Sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, with only minor gaps around edge cases or formatting.

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%, so both parameters (danji_id, pyeong) are already documented, including the pyeong default of '대표 평형'. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific resource (Richgo fair asking-price range) with precise scope: floor bands (low/mid/high), one floor-plan size, plus quick-sale level and listing count. This is clearly distinguishable from price-sibling tools like get_price_history and get_price_forecast_3m, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it: for '이 가격 적당해?' (is this price appropriate?) questions. Clear context is provided, but no exclusions or named alternatives are given for when this tool is the wrong choice.

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