실거래 이력

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds: scope (Seoul commercial office), months default, and instruction to read structuredContent for accurate data. No contradiction; description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is very concise with three short sentences covering purpose, scope, parameters, and a critical usage instruction. No fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema exists, description does not need to explain return values. It sufficiently covers scope, parameters, and data usage (structuredContent). Could mention output language or potential pagination, but overall complete for a tool with rich annotations and schema.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% coverage. Description explains months range (1-60) and default, and that address is a land lot (지번). Adds value beyond schema but could be more detailed on address format or other constraints.

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 clearly states it provides matched real transaction history for a land lot, newest first, with confidence, and specifies scope: Seoul commercial office sales. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its specific data and usage instruction to read structuredContent for trends, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use: for recalculating trends, use structuredContent.transactions[], not text. Also specifies months range (1-60) and default 24. Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the structuredContent instruction is a clear guideline.

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