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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: it flags the tool as paid ('[유료]'), names the data source (poi 원장), and warns that score_demotion makes certain scores unverified reference values. It also discloses that the response carries latitude/longitude and complex_key, which an agent needs for chaining.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by interpretation rules and chaining advice, with bold emphasis aiding scanability. It is somewhat dense and multi-clause, but every sentence carries actionable content (do-not-use warning, follow-up tool names).

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 partly compensates by naming key response fields (location.facts contents, coordinates, complex_key) and their reliability caveat. For a two-optional-param paid report tool this is largely complete, though it leaves other returned sections (전세/시세 detail shape) unmentioned.

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 name ('단지명, e.g. 반포자이') and complex_key are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description only incidentally notes that complex_key appears in the response for reuse, adding no lookup semantics or precedence rules between the two optional, mutually-substitutable 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?

States a specific verb and resource: an integrated lookup of 시세·전세·기본정보 for a single complex, with '[유료]' scope and '단지 하나' narrowing. This differentiates it from sibling specialists like realty_complex_pyeong_price or realty_complex_rent_by_pyeong by its aggregated nature, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Gives concrete qualitative guidance: answer location questions using location.facts, do NOT use overall_score/scores for ranking or 'good location' judgments, and feed the returned coordinates/complex_key into realty_poi_nearby and realty_predict_price. It covers how to use the output and which tools to chain, but does not state when to pick this tool over the other complex-level siblings.

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