register_posting

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the deduplication behavior (skip if link already exists, with an exception for '마감' status), that created_at is auto-recorded, that no Discord notification is sent per call, and that the tool returns JSON. These are important behavioral traits beyond what a schema would show. It does not mention error handling or permissions, but for a registration tool, the covered aspects are sufficient.

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 a single paragraph of about 4 sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes crucial operational notes (dedup rule, auto-timestamp, notification batching) without unnecessary filler. It is concise while conveying all key behavioral guidance.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (17 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, dedup logic, auto-created_at, the JSON return and the recommendation to batch and call send_collection_summary. It does not explain the exact JSON structure or error cases, but those are not critical for correct invocation, and the schema handles parameter details. Overall, it provides enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 71% (12 of 17 params have descriptions). The description itself adds little beyond the schema: it reinforces that 'link' is the dedup key (already stated in schema) and explains the intended flow of collecting results. Since the schema already documents most parameters in detail, the description does not need to repeat them. It adds marginal value but does not compensate for the few undocumented params.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: registering collected postings into a specific Notion DB ('🗃️ 공고 분석'). It uses a specific verb ('등록합니다'), names the resource, and explains the deduplication rule. It is distinct from siblings like search_jobs and get_job_detail, which are for retrieval, and send_collection_summary, which is for final notification.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool: when you have collected postings to register. It also explicitly instructs to accumulate results and call send_collection_summary only once at the end, rather than sending per-call notifications. However, it does not contrast with search/get tools, but that is obvious given the verb. It provides clear operational guidance for the calling pattern.

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