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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld already cover safety) by disclosing that move-in figures are a lower bound because 정비사업 조합원분 is missing, that permit_pipeline_households must not be added due to double counting, and what denominator_unstable=true and series_as_of imply. It also discloses what is absent from the data (호가 매물, 비아파트) and that the verdict thresholds are the provider's own rule, not an official standard.

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?

Front-loads the core operation before the example questions and the caveat block, and uses bold/bullets to make the output-carry rules scannable. It is dense and leans heavily on output-presentation instructions ('결론에 반드시 옮길 것'), which is useful but pushes the length near the limit for a selection-time description.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the ratio, the five verdict labels, the cross-validation signal row, the conflict field, and the meta fields (disclosures, series_as_of, denominator_unstable). An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result correctly.

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 region, horizon_months and include_footnotes are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the window-to-annual conversion logic but adds no format, syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific computation and resource: dividing upcoming move-ins (announced via 청약홈, next N months, annualized) by 12-month household growth to produce a ratio plus a verdict band. The verdict bands and cross-validation signals are stated explicitly, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, name or contrast any sibling (e.g. realty_move_in_supply, realty_supply_pipeline), so routing still requires the agent to infer from scope alone.

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 example questions ('○○ 공급 과잉이야?', '어디가 입주 대비 수요가 많아?') function as concrete use-case triggers, making the when-to-use condition clear. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives for when this tool is the wrong choice versus the supply/price siblings, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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