get_complex_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only lists the parameter and example fields but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The description is minimal.

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 short, containing both Korean and English text. It is mostly concise, but the parameter description is redundant with the schema. It could be more streamlined.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. The tool has only one parameter and the description covers its purpose. However, due to the lack of behavioral transparency and usage guidelines, the description is minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides 'complex_no: 단지 코드' (complex code) which is a minor addition, but does not explain the format or source of the code. The description adds limited value beyond the schema.

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 '단지 상세 정보' (complex detail info) and lists example fields (households, area, move-in year, construction company). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_complexes' which likely lists complexes, and 'get_price_info' etc.

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 implies usage for retrieving detailed info for a specific complex, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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