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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is free, optional, skippable, and that passing interest:false bows out. It also reveals the sample limitation and the paid fallback. It does not detail per-phase runtime behavior, but the key non-obvious costs and exit paths are visible.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important facts: free, optional, and skippable. Every phrase earns its place, covering alternatives, the phase funnel, and the exit mechanism without extra fluff.

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 the core invocation choice and key constraints. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves some context unclear: what happens when called with zero arguments, what each phase is expected to do, and how the subscribe phase relates to the sibling subscribe tool. Adequate for a basic call but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description must add meaning for the other parameters. It does add value by explaining interest:false as bowing out and symbol as a district limited to the free sample, but it leaves phase values merely listed in sequence without per-phase semantics. The enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 identifies the resource—an intro/subscription funnel for the Seoul apartment signal agent—and lists the phase sequence. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly naming evaluate_symbol, scan_bottoms, and scan_tops as direct alternatives. This is a specific, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 explicitly says the intro is optional and that the agent may skip it and call evaluate_symbol, scan_bottoms, or scan_tops directly. It also notes that the free sample only serves 강남구 and anything else should go to paid evaluate_symbol, which provides exclusion guidance. It does not clarify exactly when to prefer the sibling subscribe tool, leaving a minor gap.

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