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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful data-handling commitments (KRW integers with a conversion example; source_url is internal and never public), but it omits upsert semantics (what happens when post_id already exists), authorization failure behavior, and any side effects beyond saving.

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 sentences in Korean, each carrying a distinct piece of information: purpose/scope, invocation timing, and shared field semantics. No filler or repetition.

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?

The definition covers the essential workflow and the two most important behavioral conventions (currency units and private field), which is enough for a routine follow-up call. However, for a write tool with 17 parameters and no output schema/annotations, it should also state upsert conflict behavior, applicable fields per deal_type, and what the tool returns; these gaps keep it at minimum viable.

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 65%, and the description adds cross-parameter meaning: all money fields must be KRW integers (7,300만원 → 73000000) and source_url is private. It also ties parameter usage to 'same fields' as post_as_persona, which helps the agent populate fields; however, a few schema-undocumented fields (floor, rooms, building_name, contact_phone) remain unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('저장합니다' / saves), a clear resource ('부동산 게시글의 구조화 데이터' / structured real-estate post data), and an admin scope. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search_property_listings because it writes rather than reads, and the pipeline mention of post_as_persona reinforces the intended action.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to call this immediately after post_as_persona and send the same fields, which is a concrete when-to-use condition. It also notes admin-only access, but it does not enumerate when-not-to-use or point to alternatives such as upsert_job_listing.

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