get_single_house_trades

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It explains behavior: return structure (total_count, items, summary, error/message), lack of unit name, and that area_sqm is gross floor area. It does not mention idempotency or rate limits, but for a read tool this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with purpose and keywords, and uses structured bullet points for parameters and output. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 complexity (multiple sibling trade tools, 3 parameters, output schema provided), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter details, return structure including error handling, and a key characteristic (no unit name).

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 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter: region_code as a 5-digit legal district code from get_region_code, year_month in YYYYMM format with a call to get_current_year_month if not specified, and num_of_rows with default 100. This adds significant meaning.

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 'Return detached and multi-unit house (단독/다가구) sale records for a region and month.' It uses a specific verb and resource, includes Korean keywords, and differentiates from sibling tools like get_apartment_trades and get_villa_trades by explicitly naming the property type.

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 implies usage for detached/multi-unit house sales but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. It does provide a prerequisite (call get_current_year_month for year_month if not specified) and notes API limitations, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance.

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