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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context: admin-only access, required call ordering after post_as_persona, and the salary-privacy encoding rule. However, it does not disclose upsert semantics, whether existing records are overwritten, authentication requirements beyond 'admin', or any side effects, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the admin constraint, then gives the sequencing instruction, then the key salary rule. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is not complete enough. It provides valuable orientation but omits upsert behavior, parameter semantics for most fields, what happens on conflict, and any expected response. An agent has enough to attempt the call, but not enough to invoke it confidently and safely across realistic variations.

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 29%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds a valuable rule for wage_type, wage_min_krw, and wage_max_krw (KRW integer, use 협의 and omit amounts when private), but most of the 14 parameters remain unexplained, including post_id provenance, source_name/source_ref/source_url, and contact fields. The compensation is too partial for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('저장합니다' / saves) on a specific resource ('채용 게시글' / job posting structured data), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling upsert_property_listing. It does not explicitly explain the 'upsert' (create-or-update) behavior, but the tool name and resource make the purpose reasonably clear.

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 a clear usage context: it is admin-only and should be called right after post_as_persona. This is actionable sequencing and access guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the job-listing scope makes the intended use unambiguous.

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