get_complexes

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals an automatic fallback on rate limiting, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other aspects like authentication, read-only nature, or error states. The disclosure is partial but adds value.

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, starting with the core purpose, then the behavioral note, then parameter documentation. Every sentence contributes without redundancy. It is efficiently structured for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 only 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and a critical behavioral quirk (rate limit fallback). It lacks mention of authentication or pagination, but the output schema likely handles return details, making it reasonably 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 bears full responsibility. It explains cortar_no as a 10-digit administrative district code and lists real_estate_type values (APT, OPST, VL etc.), with a default noted. This provides essential meaning absent from 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 explicitly states the tool retrieves a list of complexes for a specific neighborhood, with a clear verb (조회/retrieve) and resource (단지 목록/complex list). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_complex_detail (single complex) and search_listings (property listings).

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 provides a specific usage scenario: when rate-limited, the tool auto-switches and directs to search_listings. This gives agents a conditional alternative. However, it doesn't cover when to prefer this tool over other siblings in normal conditions.

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