ecos_search_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description accurately describes the operation as a search (read-only) but does not disclose important behavioral aspects such as whether it returns multiple results, pagination behavior, or any rate limits. With zero annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't offer deep behavioral insight beyond the single sentence.

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 very concise at two short sentences. It directly states the core function in the first sentence and adds usage context in the second. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy. However, it could be slightly improved by more clearly separating the main purpose from additional context, but overall it's 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 single required parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and a clear purpose, the description is nearly sufficient but lacks details on the return format (e.g., what fields are returned alongside the stat_code). The sibling context suggests other tools exist for fetching data once the code is known, but the description doesn't explicitly connect this. Overall, adequate for a simple search tool but leaves some 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 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no description for the only parameter 'keyword'. The description mentions that the tool searches by keyword but does not elaborate on the nature of acceptable keywords (e.g., English or Korean, partial match, case sensitivity). For a single parameter with zero schema documentation, the description should compensate, but it barely does.

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: searching for ECOS statistics tables by keyword. It uses specific verb-resource pairing (검색한다+ECOS 통계표) and distinguishes the return value being a stat_code. The additional phrase '사전 등록되지 않은 지표를 찾을 때 사용' adds context that this tool is for finding unregistered indicators, which differentiates it from sibling tools like ecos_get_statistic_data that likely use an already-known code.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: when searching for a stat_code for an indicator that is not pre-registered. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if you already have the stat_code) or explicitly name alternatives. The sibling tool ecos_get_statistic_data is implied as the alternative for when you have the code, but this is not stated outright.

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