get_complex_price_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes return data but omits side effects, required permissions, error handling, or behavior when both parameters are empty. This leaves significant behavioral 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and detailed in the second sentence. It is concise and efficient, though it could benefit from more structure.

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 tool has an output schema and low parameter count (2 optional). The description covers the basic purpose but lacks context on fallback behavior, parameter interaction, and comparison with siblings. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how to choose between complex_id and complex_name or provide usage context. 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves prices by complex unit size and recent transaction prices, specifying data sources (Naver) and types (sale/jeonse, asking range, transaction history). It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_complex_info). The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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