search_notices

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the search is a title-only filter, it relies on scraping recent pages rather than a native search endpoint, and results are limited by the pages parameter (default ~160 items). This effectively discloses the tool's operational constraints and limitations.

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 compact, well-organized single sentence that fronts the purpose, then adds a necessary caveat about the missing keyword search and a concrete adjustment instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 filtered-lookup tool with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description is largely complete: it states the source, the filtering mechanism, default scope, and how to broaden the search. It does not describe the return value format or pagination details, but since there is no output schema this is a minor gap rather than a critical one for this relatively simple search tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'query' semantics (search by title containment) and 'pages' semantics (how many pages to scan; increase for older results). 'limit' is not directly explained, but its meaning is reasonably inferable from context. The description adds meaningful value for the two most important parameters beyond the raw schema.

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 학사공지 notices whose titles contain the query, with a specific scope (강원대학교). It explicitly describes the mechanism (scraping recent pages and filtering by title) and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the resource ('학사공지') and the search semantics. The verb '검색하다' + resource is specific and clear.

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 explicit usage guidance: it explains that the site does not support keyword search, so the tool filters recent pages (default 10 pages, ~160 items) by title, and explicitly tells the agent to increase 'pages' to find older items. This gives concrete when-to-use and how-to-extend instructions that are actionable.

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