Real estate transaction prices

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds useful details like the geographic scope (Seoul), price unit, and filterability. However, it doesn't specify return format, property types (e.g., apartments vs. all types), sorting, or default behavior when no filters are provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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 and front-loaded. The main verb and resource appear first, followed by a parenthetical unit note and filtering possibilities. The Korean title and usage example are efficient and directly relevant, with no wasted words.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete but leaves gaps. It doesn't clarify whether results are limited to apartments, what the default scope is when no filters are given, or what fields are in the output. The schema helps with parameters but not with return semantics.

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 100% with each parameter described. The description mentions filterable by district/dong/year, which mirrors the schema but adds little new meaning. It doesn't explain nuances like the limit parameter or combinations of filters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Seoul real-estate sale transaction records'. It also mentions the price unit (만원) and filter criteria, making it distinctly different from sibling tools like get_weather or get_population.

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 provides a concrete usage example in Korean: 'Use for questions like "Gangnam-gu apartment real transaction price?"'. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, although it doesn't explicitly enumerate exclusions or alternative tools.

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