housing_profile_get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds context beyond them: the scope is the caller's own profile (본인) and a returned configured=false means no profile has been saved yet. It does not explain what happens on an unconfigured profile beyond that flag or describe return shape, but given annotation coverage this is above the bar.

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 short sentences: purpose first, timing second, response semantic last. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and the one response field an agent must branch on (configured). It leaves the detailed shape of the returned profile fields unstated, but since the fields were named at a high level, nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so schema coverage is moot and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no pseudo-parameters and instead spends its words on scope and the configured flag.

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 names a specific verb (조회합니다 – retrieves) and a specific resource (본인의 청약통장·세대·관심지역 조건 – the user's subscription account, household, and interested-region conditions). It clearly reads a stored profile rather than computing one. The separation from the sibling housing_profile_save is only implied by the phrase '조건 변경 전에' (before changing conditions); the save tool is never named, so the distinction is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

It gives concrete positive usage contexts: before a first consultation and before changing conditions. That positively orients the agent toward the read-then-write flow with housing_profile_save. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a named alternative, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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