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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of safety disclosure. The verb '조회' (query) and 'Returns: 일별 평균가격 추이' imply a non-destructive read operation, and the days parameter discloses a max of 30. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, failure behavior, or whether results are aggregated across all markets when market_code is empty. Adequate but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence, followed by a clean Args/Returns structure. Every line adds value — examples, defaults, and max constraints are compact. Only minor waste: the '오늘' date-relative phrasing could be more precise, but overall it's lean and scannable.

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 3-parameter query tool with an output schema covering the return shape, the description covers parameter semantics and default behavior. The return value is summarized as '일별 평균가격 추이', which is sufficient given the output schema. It's complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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 0%, and the description compensates well: it explains product_keyword as an item keyword with concrete examples ('사과', '딸기'), market_code as a wholesale market code with empty-string-means-nationwide semantics, and days as the inquiry period with default 7 and max 30. This goes meaningfully beyond the bare schema names, which only have titles.

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 (조회/query) and resource (품목의 최근 N일간 가격 추이 = item price trend over N days). The focus on time-series price trends distinguishes it from siblings like compare_market_prices and get_realtime_auction, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The '일별 평균가격 추이' detail clarifies the output is daily averages, making the core function unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the five siblings. It never mentions alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites — an agent must infer from names that get_price_trend is for trends while compare_market_prices or search_product_price serve other needs. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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