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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: the exact response sections and the important negative disclosure that no 원문 거래 목록 is returned. The per-call cost of 50 points is also disclosed, which matters for an agent deciding whether to call. It does not mention pagination limits or behavior at max 1000 rows.

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 output/purpose scope is front-loaded, but the same content is stated twice, once in English and once in Korean, which roughly doubles length without adding information for a single-language reader. There is some waste, though no sentence is genuinely irrelevant.

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 usefully enumerates the five response sections and rules out a raw-record return, which is what an agent most needs to know before calling. Missing pieces are minor: pagination semantics across the requested date/region and what happens when no transactions match.

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 lawdCd, dealYmd, pageNo, numOfRows and propertyType. The description adds only the conceptual grouping axes (단지·면적대·가격대·층별) that are not parameters, and says nothing about defaults or how propertyType changes the analysis. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (analyze/집계) and resource (Korean apartment sale 실거래) and enumerates the concrete outputs (per-complex/per-area medians, direct-deal and cancellation shares, outliers). It is clearly a sales-transaction analytics tool, distinguishable in substance from rtms_rent and land_rt_price, though neither 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?

The note that the response is summary/distribution/complexes/anomalies/insights and that raw transaction records are NOT returned implies usage (aggregate analysis, not record retrieval), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or pointer to an alternative such as rtms_rent for rental or a raw-list tool.

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