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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the required write:listings key, that the key owner's identity is used, that the server constructs the listing body from the input fields, and that the dry run returns preview plus warnings. It leaves unstated what a successful publish returns and whether a submitted listing becomes immediately public.

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?

Purpose, units, and the two-step protocol appear in that order with no filler; every sentence either prevents a misuse (currency mix-up, unapproved publish) or explains a default. The numbered (1)/(2) structure makes the sequence easy to follow.

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 19-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical surfaces: authorization, units, server-side body construction, and the confirmation gate. It is thin only on post-success behavior and on how it relates to 'upsert_property_listing'.

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 74%, so the schema already explains most fields, including dry_run and confirmed_by_user. The description adds a real unit conversion example (3억 → 300000000) and the fact that no free-form body needs to be assembled, but contributes nothing on the six required fields or the broker-specific parameters.

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 concrete verb+resource+destination: registering the caller's own Jeju real-estate listing on jejusns.com, with the ownership scope ('본인 매물', key owner's name) stated explicitly. It is not distinguished from the sibling 'upsert_property_listing', which is a plausible source of confusion between create-only and create-or-update semantics.

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 prescribes an exact operating procedure: first call with dry_run omitted, show the returned preview and warnings verbatim, ask for approval, then re-call with dry_run=false and confirmed_by_user=true. It also states a hard prohibition ('사용자 승인 없이 dry_run=false 로 부르지 마세요'), so both the when and the when-not are unambiguous.

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