housing_finance_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the default return is raw saved inputs only, that results can be large, and that recomputation is opt-in and relatively costly (delegated to housing_finance_calculate). It does not explain pagination behavior or the meaning of the asOf baseline.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the default-return caveat and the alternative tool. Dense and functional, with only minor redundancy between the default-is-raw statement and the includeCalculation sentence.

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?

As a read-only tool with no output schema, the description mostly suffices, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with 25% schema coverage and four parameters, it never explains what asOf or the schedule offset/limit pair do, leaving an agent unable to page a large plan correctly without inspecting the schema.

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 only 25%, with includeCalculation alone documented. The description reinforces that flag's default-vs-true semantics and hints that large payloads are handled elsewhere, but leaves asOf, scheduleLimit, and scheduleOffset — the parameters an agent needs to page through big plans — entirely uninterpreted.

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 ('저장한 자금 계획 입력을 조회합니다' — retrieve the funding-plan inputs the user saved) and explicitly separates itself from housing_finance_calculate, so an agent can distinguish it from the save/calculate siblings without opening schemas.

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 clear conditional guidance: default fetches raw inputs so large plans stay editable, and includeCalculation=true adds recomputed results. It also routes heavy computation to the sibling housing_finance_calculate. It stops short of explicitly excluding the other siblings (e.g. housing_profile_get) or stating when not to request calculation.

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