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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral constraint — results are limited to postings registered on ibtcc.kr — and enumerates the returned fields, which is useful. However, it says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, result ordering, or behavior when an organization has no postings.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, and the core capability is front-loaded before the scope qualifier. Each sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, but the description compensates by listing the exact metadata fields returned and identifying the backing source. The remaining gap is behavioral detail (pagination behavior is only in the schema, no guidance on empty results), which is minor for a simple two-parameter lookup.

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 100%, with both org_name (example values given) and limit (default 5, max 10) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (조회합니다) and resource (채용 공고 메타정보), and enumerates the exact fields returned (제목·직무·접수기간·지역·채용인원·상태·원문링크), so an agent can distinguish it from lookup_job_schedule or lookup_competition_ratio. It also names the data source (ibtcc.kr), which pins the scope. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling tool.

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 scope sentence ('공공기관 채용공고 게시판(ibtcc.kr)에 등록된 공고 기준입니다') implies the domain in which this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no alternatives such as lookup_job_schedule are named. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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