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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add scope context — and it does: a 3-year lookback window, newest-contract-first ordering, and the MOLIT data source. It does not mention pagination or behavior when no transactions exist, which caps it at 4.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the English statement of purpose, then the Korean sentence which is not pure duplication — it adds the 3-year window and the returned field list. Slightly redundant for bilingual readers but each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (contract date, price, floor, building, transaction type, registration date) and discloses the 3-year scope. Combined with full schema coverage and complete annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly; only result-volume/pagination 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 all three parameters (danji_id, pyeong, limit) are already documented including defaults and the 30-record cap. The description only echoes the complex-plus-floor-plan scoping, adding no syntax or interpretation beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb and resource ("recent recorded sale transactions") and scopes it to one apartment complex plus a floor-plan size, so it is clearly distinguishable from the pricing/forecast siblings like get_price_history or get_price_forecast_3m. It does not explicitly name those siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for actual recorded transaction prices once a danji_id is known, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' or any stated prerequisite beyond the schema's note that danji_id comes from search_apartments. No exclusions or edge-case guidance are given.

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