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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the [유료] paid cost, the data-validity disclosure that location.overall_score·scores are unverified (location.score_demotion), the provenance of location.facts as raw counts from the POI ledger, and the chaining contract that the response carries coordinates and complex_key. No contradiction with 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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose, the critical location-data protocol, and the downstream chaining instruction. Purpose is front-loaded. Slightly long sentences keep it from a 5, but there is zero filler.

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 must carry return semantics — and it does for the critical parts: what location.facts contains, why overall_scores are untrustworthy, and that coordinates + complex_key are returned for chaining. Missing is guidance on parameter selection (prefer complex_key vs name, and that realty_search_complexes can resolve a key), which would fully close the loop for a paid, 2-param tool.

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 coverage is 100% — both name and complex_key have Korean descriptions ('단지명 (예: 반포자이)', '정확한 단지 키'). The description reinforces that complex_key appears in the response for chaining, but it doesn't add parameter-level meaning such as which parameter takes precedence or how to discover a complex_key. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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: '단지 하나의 시세·전세·기본정보를 통합 조회한다' (integrated query of price, jeonse, and basic info for one complex). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like realty_complex_pyeong_price, realty_complex_rent_by_pyeong, and realty_location_scores, which each target a narrower slice.

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?

Provides explicit workflow routing: the response's coordinates and complex_key should be fed into realty_poi_nearby and realty_predict_price for deeper analysis, and warns that location.overall_score/scores must not be used for ranking or comparison. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternative single-complex tools, leaving some selection logic implicit.

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