get_price_history

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only lookup ('조회') of a specific product's price history from Danawa, which adds useful context, but it does not disclose return format, data freshness, pagination, or external-site dependence.

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 a single short Korean sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. Each element — source, scope, and operation — earns its place.

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 there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin to be contextually complete. It does not explain what the returned history contains, how period affects results, or when to select this tool over price-related siblings.

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 100%, so the schema already documents productCode and period. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond matching 'specific product' to productCode, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('조회합니다' / retrieves) and a clear resource ('price fluctuation history for a specific product on Danawa'). It differentiates from siblings like compare_prices and find_lowest_price by focusing on historical changes, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus related siblings such as get_product_detail, compare_prices, or find_lowest_price. The description only states the operation; it does not give selection criteria or exclusions.

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