get_building_house_price_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals this is a read operation (조회합니다 - retrieve/query) and describes pagination behavior through page_no and num_of_rows parameters. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether all parameters are required. The return format is documented, which is helpful but doesn't cover all behavioral aspects.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, elaboration, parameter documentation, and return format. Each sentence earns its place by adding value. The parameter documentation is comprehensive but necessary given the poor schema coverage. The Korean text is concise and to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description does a good job of explaining what the tool does, what parameters mean, and what it returns. The output schema exists, so the description appropriately documents the return structure. The main gap is lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but otherwise this is reasonably complete for a data retrieval tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (all parameters have generic titles like 'Sigungu Cd'), the description provides essential semantic information for all 8 parameters. It explains what each code represents (시군구코드 = city/county/district code, 법정동코드 = legal district code), provides formatting examples (5자리 = 5 digits, 4자리 = 4 digits), and explains plat_gb_cd values (0: 대지, 1: 산, 2: 블록). This significantly compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '건축물대장 주택가격을 조회합니다' (retrieve building register house price information) and specifies it provides '공시가격 정보' (publicly announced price information). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on house prices rather than other building attributes like floor outlines or usage areas. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, just implies a specific data domain.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that retrieve different types of building information (floor outlines, usage areas, titles, etc.), there's no indication of which tool to choose for what specific need. The description assumes the user already knows they need house price information specifically.

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