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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals non-obvious behavior: amounts must be in KRW with a concrete example (3억 → 300000000), region values must use Korean names, and Jeju-specific annual rent maps to yearly_max. It does not describe result ordering, pagination, or expired-listing defaults, but the core search behavior is transparent and side-effect-free.

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?

Three compact Korean sentences with no filler. The main action and filter scope are front-loaded, followed by the critical formatting and parameter-mapping conventions. Every sentence adds information that reduces the chance of incorrect invocation.

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 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description targets the highest-risk ambiguities for Jeju property search: currency units, locality names, and the distinction between monthly and yearly rent. Combined with the schema's parameter descriptions and enums, this is sufficient for correct invocation, though explicit notes on default sort/limit and expired-listing behavior would make it 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 69%, so the description is not the sole source of parameter meaning, but it adds high-value semantics beyond the schema: currency unit, KRW conversion example, Korean region-name convention, and explicit mapping of monthly_max/yearly_max to 월세/연세. Uncovered details like sort and limit defaults are largely self-explanatory, and enums document their own allowed values.

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 specific verb ('검색합니다') and a concrete resource ('구조화된 제주 부동산 매물'), then enumerates the supported filter dimensions (지역·매물유형·거래유형·가격·면적). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_posts/search_jobs and from the write-oriented upsert_property_listing.

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 gives clear, actionable context: it states the filter capability, provides currency formatting rules, specifies Korean region-name input, and explicitly disambiguates when to use monthly_max versus yearly_max. It does not name alternative tools or state exclusion conditions, but the search context and parameter guidance are clear enough for correct use.

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