taiwan_realprice_estimate

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 mentions data source and returns unit price range and total price, but does not elaborate on limitations, estimation methodology, or edge cases (e.g., missing data, geographic scope). It is adequate but lacks 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 two sentences, elegantly covering purpose, inputs, outputs, and data source. It is front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence. No extraneous 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a simple estimation tool. However, it lacks details on response structure, error handling, or specific limitations. It meets the minimum viability threshold.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., county uses '臺' not '台'). The tool description adds little beyond restating the schema, such as '可加建物型態/屋齡/坪數'. Since the schema already covers semantics, the description provides minimal additional value.

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: automatic valuation (自動估價). It specifies inputs (county, district, optional building type/age/area) and outputs (comparable unit price range in 萬/坪 and estimated total price). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like taiwan_realprice_area or taiwan_realprice_search by focusing on estimation/valuation.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., taiwan_realprice_search, taiwan_realprice_area). It only describes functionality, leaving the agent to infer usage context without clear boundaries or conditions.

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