housing_notices_match

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

The annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it preserves source quotes, basis dates, and unresolved requirements, and it frames output as a comparison of confirmed inputs rather than a verdict. It does not mention rate limits or what happens with unverified composite conditions beyond keeping them in unresolvedRequirements.

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 immediately followed by the prerequisite and the scope disclaimer. Every sentence carries a distinct constraint; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The input schema is large and deeply nested, and there is no output schema, so the description should explain more about what comes back. It covers the epistemic rules (preserve quotes and basis dates, keep unresolved requirements, do not assert eligibility) but leaves the response shape, the asOf semantics, and the handling of incomplete profiles unstated. It is adequate, but incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does touch on the semantics of key notice fields (evidence quotes, 기준일/basisDate, 미확인 요건/unresolvedRequirements), which maps onto parts of the notices payload. However, it says nothing about the asOf parameter, the 10-notice cap, sourceKind, or the requirement operators, so coverage is partial at best.

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: it compares the conditions of a notice against the saved user profile, using values verified from the official source. The agent can distinguish this from housing_profile_save or housing_notices_list. However, it never names sibling tools such as housing_compare, so the boundary between this tool and the other comparison tools is left for the agent to infer.

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 description gives a clear prerequisite ('먼저 프로필을 등록해야 합니다') and a negative scope statement ('최종 청약 자격을 확정하는 도구가 아닙니다'), which usefully rules out using it to decide eligibility. It gives no explicit guidance about when to choose it over housing_compare or housing_notices_list, so the usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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