get_apt_trade

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 only implies a read-only query via '조회' but does not describe pagination, response format, rate limits, error handling, or any other behavioral traits, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 very short and front-loaded, which makes it easy to parse, but it conveys only the bare purpose and borders on being a title rather than a functional description. It is concise yet under-specified.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, and the presence of pagination parameters, the description is not sufficiently complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to handle multiple pages, or any operational nuances, making it inadequate for robust agent invocation.

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 description merely restates the two required parameters (지역코드+계약년월) already documented in the schema. It adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not compensate for the 50% schema description coverage, leaving pageNo and numOfRows unexplained.

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: '아파트 매매 실거래가 조회' (apartment sales transaction price inquiry) with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the required query parameters (regionCode + dealYearMonth), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_apt_rent (rental) and other property-type tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or refer to sibling tools; the only distinction is implicit in the name and the term '매매' (sales), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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