Adjusted area on a date

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), it discloses a key behavioral trait: history contains only evidence-secured periods and unrecorded periods/regions return '판단불가' rather than a plausible wrong answer. This indeterminate-return behavior is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey; only the exact return shape is unspecified.

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 purpose and parameter guidance are front-loaded and mostly earn their place, but the text is dense and mixes languages while carrying internal-only references (트리④ B2, data/adj_regions_history.json, backfill action backlog) that add noise without helping selection.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter formats, an edge-case date rule, data-coverage limits, the indeterminate return value, and downstream linkage. It is nearly complete; only the precise success return structure is left implicit.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does: it gives region format examples ('서울 마포구', '성남시 분당구'), target_date format YYYY-MM-DD, and the edge-case rule that 분양권·입주권 승계취득 uses the use-approval date. This substantially compensates for the empty schema, though region naming conventions are not exhaustively defined.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: determining whether a region was an adjusted (regulated) area on a given date from designation history. It is precise and unique among siblings (no other judge_* tool covers adjusted-area status), but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related tools like judge_exemption_requirements beyond naming a downstream link.

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?

It clearly frames the use case as judging '취득 당시' (at-time-of-acquisition) adjusted-area status and tells the agent to feed acquired_in_adjusted_area into judge_exemption_requirements. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not conditions or alternatives for other scenarios.

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