가이드 문서 검색

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the two operating modes and that fetchTop>0 triggers network body retrieval, consistent with openWorldHint=true. It stops short of noting latency or partial-failure behavior for the remote fetch.

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, front-loaded with purpose then the mode distinction, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a three-parameter search tool, though the parenthetical scoring detail could be trimmed.

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?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough about what comes back (scored index hits, plus snippets when fetchTop>0) to set expectations. Missing only return-shape specifics, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including fetchTop's meaning. The description largely restates fetchTop's effect rather than adding syntax or edge-case detail, so the baseline 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?

Names a specific verb (검색) and a well-scoped resource (공식 가이드 문서 egovframe-docs 인덱스), which an agent can distinguish from the component search sibling. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_egovframe_guide or search_egovframe_components, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 explains the default mode (offline index search) and the fetchTop>0 mode (body download + snippets), which implies when to raise fetchTop. But it offers no explicit guidance on when to pick this tool over get_egovframe_guide or search_egovframe_components, leaving tool selection to inference.

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