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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It does add two genuinely useful behaviors beyond the annotations: a per-call cost of 50 points and the fact that an invalid addr1 returns an 'options' field listing selectable regions. It stops short of describing result volume or pagination for a potentially large transaction history.

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 English sentence and the Korean sentence say the same thing, so roughly half the text is redundant restatement. The distinctive details (options fallback, 50-point cost) are present but appended rather than front-loaded.

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 four-required-parameter read lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, cost, and error recovery. The remaining gap is the shape of a successful response (transaction fields, volume, sorting), which an agent must discover at runtime.

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%, with each parameter (type code A~H, year range, addr1, addr2) fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the three lookup axes and adds the addr1-failure fallback, which is useful but does not deepen the meaning of individual parameters.

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') and scopes it by region, property type, and year. An agent can tell it is a read lookup of transaction prices, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as rtms_trade, rtms_rent, or registry_realestate_search, which likely overlap.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus rtms_trade/rtms_rent/land_info, and no preconditions or exclusions are given. The only guidance is reactive error recovery for a bad addr1, which tells the agent nothing about tool selection.

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