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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the return contents (monthly estimated sale/jeonse prices, 1/3/5-year changes, peak position), which matters since there is no output schema. However, it does not mention limitations such as data freshness, units, or whether the current month is included.

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 description is front-loaded and reasonably short, but it repeats the same content in English and Korean, which adds redundancy for an agent rather than new information. The core meaning is efficient, but the bilingual duplication slightly reduces conciseness.

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 read-only, idempotent, 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned: monthly estimated sale/jeonse trends plus 1/3/5-year change rates and peak comparison. Some finer details are absent (e.g., units, data source, handling of missing pyeong), but the description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents danji_id, pyeong, and months clearly. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states a specific resource and verb: monthly Richgo estimated sale and jeonse price trends for an apartment complex size, including 1/3/5-year change rates and peak comparison. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_recent_trades or get_price_forecast_3m by emphasizing estimated historical trend data, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_recent_trades, get_apartment_overview, or get_price_forecast_3m. The scope implies a historical trend use case, but the description does not state when-not-to-use or direct the agent to alternatives.

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