house_get_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that it 'returns all public information' and enumerates a comprehensive list of returned categories, making the behavior transparent. It also discloses that a house URL can be passed and the number is auto-extracted, adding input flexibility. This goes beyond a generic 'retrieve details' statement.

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 lengthy due to the enumerated return categories, but it is well-structured with a clear opening statement and labeled sections. Each category informs the agent about available data, which is valuable for a detail endpoint. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose first, and the Args section is concise.

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 tool has only one parameter and no annotations, the description provides thorough guidance: parameter source, alternative input, and a comprehensive overview of returned data. The sibling tool house_search is referenced appropriately. There is little ambiguity about what the tool does and how to use it.

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 input schema only defines house_no as a required string with no description. The description adds substantial meaning: it specifies the format (e.g., '1083GN'), the source (house_search's id field), and an alternative input type (URL with auto-extraction). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with a clear statement of purpose: '查詢單一房屋物件的完整明細' (query complete details of a single house object). It specifies a specific verb (query) and resource (single house details), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool house_search by requiring a single house identifier and referencing house_search as the source for that identifier.

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 Args section explicitly instructs that house_no is obtained from house_search results' id field, implying this tool is for post-search detail lookup on a specific property. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the reference to house_search provides sufficient contextual guidance for when to invoke this tool versus searching.

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