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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the meaningful auth constraint that only the key owner's own posts can be withdrawn. It does not say whether the takedown is reversible or a hard delete, whether the post disappears from search/feed results, or what happens when the ownership check fails, leaving the mutation semantics partly opaque.

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 consists of a single front-loaded sentence plus a short constraint clause, with no filler. The example causes are compressed into a parenthetical, which keeps the definition short while still adding information.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover safety and effect on its own. It covers purpose, justification, and ownership scope, but omits reversibility, effect on downstream listings/feeds, and failure behavior, which is a real gap for a takedown operation.

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 50%: post_id is documented in the schema as 'submit_* 가 돌려준 post_id', while reason has an enum but no description. The description never mentions the reason parameter or explains that the withdrawal causes it lists ('거래완료', '마감', '잘못 등록') correspond to the enum values, so it contributes almost nothing beyond 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 uses a specific verb and object phrase ('이 키 주인이 올린 매물·공고를 내립니다') and adds a scope qualifier ('본인 글만 가능합니다'), so an agent can tell what is being changed and whose content it touches. It is not identical to any sibling, though it never names the counterpart submit_property_listing or submit_job_listing to make the pairing explicit.

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?

Parenthetical examples ('거래 완료·마감·실수 등록') tell the agent the situations that justify calling it, and '본인 글만 가능합니다' states a precondition. The description does not name an alternative tool or say what to do when the post does not belong to the key owner, so there is no coverage of when not to use it.

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