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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful semantics: wages are in KRW, interpreted together with wage_type, and undisclosed wages use wage_type='협의'. It does not mention read-only behavior, response shape, pagination, or default filtering of closed postings, but this is a reasonable disclosure for a search tool.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first states the purpose and main filters, the second clarifies the non-obvious wage semantics. No redundant words, no repetition of schema details already present, and all content earns its place.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and wage semantics but leaves gaps: it does not explain how region matching works, the role of limit, or the default behavior regarding closed postings. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent operating without supplemental context.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining wage_min's currency unit, the interpretation of wage_type, and the special '협의' value for undisclosed wages. This adds real semantic value that the enum and property names alone do not convey.

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 uses a specific verb ('searches') with a clear resource ('structured Jeju job postings') and specifies supported filters (region, occupation, wage). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_posts and search_property_listings even without naming them.

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 intended use is implied by the scope ('제주 채용 공고' = Jeju job postings), which suggests this is for job listings only. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over search_posts or search_property_listings, nor provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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