get_all_articles

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

The description mentions 'auto paging' and a max_pages parameter, implying it fetches multiple pages. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or the nature of pagination (sequential vs parallel). With no annotations, the description provides moderate but incomplete behavioral insight.

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 concise, using a title line and an Args section. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and parameters without extra words. However, the order parameter explanation could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing meaning of each suffix).

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 description covers parameter semantics well but lacks usage context, such as how auto-paging works, limits, or when to prefer this over get_articles. Given the output schema exists, return values are not needed, but behavioral and contextual details are missing for a comprehensive understanding.

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 fully explains each parameter: complex_no as complex code, trade_type with three options (매매, 전세, 월세 via codes A1/B1/B2), order with three choices (가격순/면적순/최신순 via codes), and max_pages as page limit. This compensates for 0% schema coverage, though order value suffixes are not explained (e.g., ascending vs descending).

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 '단지별 매물 전체 (자동 페이징)' meaning 'All articles by complex (auto paging)'. It specifies the scope (all articles for a complex) and a key feature (automatic paging), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_articles.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_articles or search_listings. There is no mention of prerequisites, performance considerations, or explicit scenarios for choosing this tool.

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