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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the response contains page_url (or per-item url) pointing to a jejusns.com page and instructs the agent to surface it to users, which is genuine return-content information. It does not state default sort/limit behavior, result pagination, or that the operation is a non-mutating read, though '검색' implies read-only.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then compact sentences each covering a distinct need (units, region format, rent-parameter routing, link attribution). No filler or restatement of the name.

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 13-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk ambiguities (currency scale, region naming, monthly vs yearly rent params, response link) and explains the returned URLs. It is slightly thin on default ordering/limit and overall result shape.

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 69%, and the description adds real value: the KRW conversion example ('3억 → 300000000'), Hangul region examples, and the domain note that 연세 is a Jeju-specific annual-rent term distinct from 월세. Remaining parameters (sort, limit, price_min/max, area_min/max, include_expired) are left to the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('구조화된 제주 부동산 매물을 필터로 검색합니다') and enumerates the filter dimensions (지역·매물유형·거래유형·가격·면적), which cleanly separates it from sibling tools such as search_jobs, search_posts and get_price_stats.

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 gives concrete usage direction: use monthly_max for monthly-rent ceilings and yearly_max for the Jeju-specific yearly-rent ceilings, pass prices in KRW, and use Hangul place names. It never states when not to use this tool or points to an alternative such as get_price_stats/get_ad_stats for aggregate statistics.

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