get_rh_trade

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states '조회' (inquiry), implying a read operation, but does not mention response format, pagination behavior, rate limits, error handling, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with four parameters and no output schema.

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, compact Korean phrase that front-loads the core purpose and key inputs. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks return value details, pagination defaults, and any differentiation from seven sibling tools. An agent would struggle to know what the response looks like or how to choose this tool over similar ones.

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 schema already describes regionCode and dealYearMonth with examples, and the description merely restates these two parameters without adding new meaning. It completely ignores pageNo and numOfRows, which are undocumented in the schema, so the description fails to compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap.

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 that the tool queries actual transaction prices for row houses and multi-family housing (연립다세대 매매 실거래가 조회), using a specific verb (조회) and resource. It also lists required inputs (지역코드+계약년월) and is unambiguous compared to sibling tools for apartments, officetels, and detached houses.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_apt_trade, get_sh_rent). It only implies that the user needs a region code and contract year month, but does not state selection criteria, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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