생활기록부 기재요령 검색

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 adds important context about the output's non-authoritative status and the role of provenance in confirming observations. However, it does not describe search behavior (e.g., whether it searches all sources, ranking, or pagination), auth requirements, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary use case, then adds necessary caveats about output authority and provenance limitations. Every sentence earns its place; the structure is clear and efficient.

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 has a output schema (which can explain return values), the description covers the main purpose and usage context. However, it leaves a major gap in explaining the advanced search parameters (sourceIds, sourceRoles), which are likely crucial for effective use. The caveats about provenance are helpful, but overall the description is not fully complete for a tool with 4 parameters.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the tool description does not compensate. The query parameter is obvious, but limit, sourceIds, and sourceRoles are completely unexplained. sourceRoles has an enum, but without explanation the agent cannot correctly choose values. The description adds zero value for parameter understanding.

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 what the tool does: it is called for general questions about regulations or to find grounds not present in verification results. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like validate_record_text and explain_record_rule by focusing on searching guidance rather than validating or explaining. However, it does not explicitly name the resource (e.g., 'student records entry guidelines' from the title), instead using the broader term 'regulations'.

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 provides explicit conditions for use: 'call when there are general questions about regulations' or 'when finding grounds not present in verification results.' It also clarifies limitations (not official/legal judgment, provenance dependency), which helps the agent decide when not to rely solely on this tool. It could be strengthened by explicitly mentioning when NOT to use it (e.g., for direct validation, use validate_record_text), but the context is clear.

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