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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that the result is an estimate produced by a statistical model extrapolating the last 12 months' price trend, and that it is not investment advice.

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 scope is front-loaded, but the English sentence and the Korean sentence say essentially the same thing, so a meaningful share of the text is duplication rather than added information. The caveat sentence earns its place; the bilingual restatement does not.

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 does the needed work by naming the returned fields (baseline price, change rate, up/flat/down outlook) and flagging the estimate caveat. Nothing critical is missing for a two-parameter, closed-world read, though expected error/coverage behavior is unstated.

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 danji_id (7-character ID from search_apartments) and pyeong (defaults to the representative floor plan) are already fully documented. The description only restates that the unit of prediction is one complex plus one floor-plan size, adding no syntax or format detail. 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 a specific verb and resource: a 3-month-ahead sale-price forecast for one apartment complex and one floor-plan size, plus what it returns (baseline price, change rate, outlook). Siblings like get_price_history and get_fair_asking_price are implicitly separated by the word forecast/projection, but no sibling is named 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?

"○○아파트 전망" 질문에 쓰세요 gives a concrete trigger tied to a user question shape, and "one floor-plan size" signals a per-floorplan call pattern. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., actual historical trades should go to get_price_history) or naming alternatives.

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