get_sh_trade

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only mentions the query inputs and the fact that it is an inquiry; it does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, error handling, required permissions, or any other behavioral traits. This is essentially a restatement of the name without behavioral depth.

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 efficient sentence with no fluff or redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose. The brevity is a strength, though it leaves out behavioral details that would have been useful.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and minimal description, the tool is not sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand return values, pagination, or usage boundaries. The description is a one-liner that covers purpose but misses essential operational context, especially since sibling tools exist and could confuse selection.

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% (regionCode and dealYearMonth have descriptions; pageNo and numOfRows do not). The description adds no meaning beyond repeating the two required parameters and does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It provides no semantic detail for pagination or parameter relationships.

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: 조회 (inquiry) of 단독/다가구 매매 실거래가 (single-family/multi-family housing sales transaction prices), with key required inputs (지역코드+계약년월). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sh_rent (rent) and get_apt_trade (apartment trade).

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?

Usage is implied by the property type ('단독/다가구') and transaction type ('매매') in the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., when to choose get_sh_trade vs get_apt_trade or get_sh_rent). It states the required inputs, which provides some context, but lacks exclusions or explicit alternatives.

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