get_complex_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool retrieves information, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or that the return format is defined by the output schema. The presence of an output schema mitigates this slightly, but the description offers no behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, zero wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. Ideal conciseness for a simple retrieval tool.

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 is minimal but adequate for a retrieval tool with a complete output schema and 100% parameter schema coverage. However, it lacks context about querying by either ID or name, and does not summarize the optionality of parameters. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 both parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('조회합니다' meaning 'retrieves') and resource ('아파트 단지 상세 정보' meaning 'detailed information about apartment complex'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tool get_complex_price_info which focuses on price data.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_complex_price_info, nor on how to choose between the two optional parameters (complex_id vs complex_name). The description is purely declarative with no usage direction.

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