가이드 문서 검색

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by disclosing the mode switch: default is offline index only, while fetchTop>0 triggers an actual network fetch of document bodies to build snippets — a meaningful nuance on openWorldHint that the annotations do not convey.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler: the resource and search source come first, then the default behavior and the fetchTop deviation. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates reasonably by describing result ordering and the presence of snippets when fetchTop>0. It stops short of sketching the returned fields (title, path, category, score) or noting result-count/pagination behavior, which would fully close the gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the ranking dimensions (title, path, linked component, category) and by framing fetchTop as the toggle between offline-only results and body-composed snippets. It does not explain limit behavior or ordering interaction between limit and fetchTop.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: keyword search over the official egovframe-docs guide index, and clarifies what is being searched (the index, not the documents themselves). It does not name or distinguish itself from the closest sibling, get_egovframe_guide (which presumably reads a document body), so an agent must infer the search-vs-read split.

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?

Usage is only implied: this is the tool to reach for when locating guides by keyword. The description explains the two operating modes (offline index by default vs. fetchTop>0 pulling bodies) but gives no explicit routing against get_egovframe_guide or explain_egovframe_component, and no when-not-to-use condition.

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