get_offi_trade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only indicates a read-only inquiry ('조회') but provides no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, result limits, or error handling. This is a minimal disclosure that does not go beyond the basic operation.

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, dense Korean sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple query tool and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 tool is relatively simple, but the description leaves gaps: no guidance on paging parameters, no mention of return value structure (since no output schema exists), and no usage alternatives. The core purpose is clear, but the overall context is not fully complete.

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 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented pageNo and numOfRows parameters. It merely repeats the two required parameters already described in the schema, adding no new meaning or format details.

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 function: querying officetel sales transaction prices, with the key parameters region code and contract year month. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying '오피스텔 매매' (officetel sales) as opposed to rent or other property types.

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 implies its use case (officetel sales) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like get_offi_rent or get_apt_trade. The agent must infer from the tool name and sibling list, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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