cy_battleitems_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action '검색합니다' (searches), which implies a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or output format. This is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, concise sentence ('아이템을 검색합니다'), which is efficient but under-specified. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to provide essential context, making it feel incomplete rather than optimally concise. It could benefit from more detail to justify its brevity.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, how results are filtered or ordered, or differentiate from similar tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively, especially without annotations or output schema to fill gaps.

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 each parameter clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'characterId' interacts with 'itemName'). However, the baseline score is 3 since the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without needing compensation from the description.

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 '아이템을 검색합니다' (searches for items) states a basic purpose but is vague and tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'cy_battleitems_search'. It doesn't specify what type of items (e.g., battle items in a game context) or distinguish from sibling tools like 'cy_battleitems_get' or 'cy_battleitems_multi_get', leaving ambiguity about scope and differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and fails to differentiate from sibling tools such as 'cy_battleitems_get' or 'cy_players_search', leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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