search_knowledge

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states read-only ('읽기 전용') and that approval status is not changed ('승인 상태는 변경하지 않는다'), which are valuable non-mutating guarantees. It does not cover return format or auth, but with output schema present, those are less critical.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the essential purpose and adds a safety-critical non-mutation clause, with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and non-mutating nature, and the output schema takes care of return values. However, parameter semantics are not explained and usage guidance is implicit, leaving some ambiguity around k_ar_id and search behavior for an agent.

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%, and the description adds no direct detail about 'query', 'limit', or 'k_ar_id'. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, and the K-AR knowledge context implies k_ar_id relates to knowledge records, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('검색' - search) and resource ('기존 K-AR 지식' - existing K-AR knowledge), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool search_legal_sources, though the K-AR knowledge scope hints at internal knowledge versus legal sources.

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 phrase '기존 K-AR 지식' implies this tool is for searching existing internal knowledge, which gives some guidance on when to use it. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are any alternatives mentioned.

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