get_commercial_trade

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: it explains that the response structure differs from residential tools, highlights the share_dealing field, and lists potential error/message fields. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement first, then parameter details, then returns. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy with listing return fields in both prose and bullet list. Overall effective.

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 covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter semantics (including default behavior and helper tool), and return structure with error handling. Given the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, this is thoroughly 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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds significant meaning: it explains region_code as a 5-digit code from get_region_code, year_month format with a helper tool reference, and num_of_rows default. This goes well beyond the bare schema types.

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 the tool returns commercial building sale records for a specific region and month, using specific verbs ('return', 'evaluate') and resource type. It distinguishes from residential tools by listing different response fields and Korean keywords, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 advises using this tool to evaluate commercial real estate alongside residential data and provides a practical tip to call get_current_year_month if the user omits the month. However, it does not explicitly state when the tool should not be used or name alternative sibling tools for exclusion.

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