realestate_get_region_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by mentioning fuzzy matching and providing example queries, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand input flexibility.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear parameter explanation. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundant or filler 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?

For a simple single-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers purpose, parameter, and fuzzy matching. It does not detail how fuzzy matching handles ambiguity or whether multiple codes may be returned, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the 'query' parameter, but the description compensates fully with an Args section that explains the parameter as a region name search term and gives concrete examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 action: look up legal dong code by region name, with a specific verb ('조회한다') and resource ('법정동 코드'). It also mentions fuzzy matching support, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools that focus on transactions and price analysis.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated. The tool's purpose as a code lookup is clear, and siblings are all market-data tools, so when to use this is inferable; however, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative recommendations, which keeps it at a mid-level score.

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