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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: invalid addr1 triggers an options field listing selectable regions, and each call costs 100 points. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bilingual Korean sentence is somewhat redundant with the English opening, but it improves accessibility for the likely Korean-speaking user, so the structure remains efficient.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description conveys the essential invocation context: query dimensions, invalid-input behavior, and cost. It does not detail the transaction record fields returned, but for a simple lookup tool this is not a critical omission.

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 fully documents all four parameters, including type codes, year range, and address format examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Look up real estate transaction price records in Korea by region, property type, and year.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from all siblings, none of which target real estate transaction prices.

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?

Clear context is provided: use this when the user needs Korean real estate transaction price history by region, type, and year. No exclusion or alternative is mentioned, but no sibling tool overlaps with this function, so ambiguity is minimal.

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