get_articles

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

The description discloses that only the first page is returned (1페이지). Without annotations, this is useful behavioral information. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness, leaving gaps.

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 and structured with a header and argument list. Every sentence adds value, though the Korean text could be slightly more compact. No unnecessary content.

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 output schema exists, return value explanation is not needed. However, the description does not mention pagination details beyond the first page, default page size, or how to get subsequent pages. This limits completeness for a paginated list tool.

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 adds thorough explanations for all parameters: complex_no (source), trade_type (values A1/B1/B2), order (values prc_/spc_/date_), and page (number). The schema had 0% description coverage, so this fully compensates.

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 states it returns a list of listings per complex (단지별 매물 목록) and explicitly limits to the first page. This clearly indicates the tool's scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_all_articles, which could fetch all pages.

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 lists trade types and sort orders, providing some usage guidance. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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