Find BULC app tools

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), and the description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return content (names, descriptions, full input schemas) and the compact-profile follow-up contract with bulc_call. Pagination/rate behavior is left to the schema's limit field.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the return description and the category list, which is long but genuinely load-bearing since it defines the accepted category values. The trailing Korean sentence is redundant for English readers but adds language coverage.

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 discovery tool with full schema coverage, the description supplies purpose, the category vocabulary, and the follow-up call pattern. No output schema exists but the description states what is returned. Only the relationship to sibling discovery tools is unaddressed.

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; the description earns above that by enumerating the full category taxonomy (project, arch, geometry, fire, ..., shape) even though the 'category' parameter has no schema enum, effectively supplying the missing value set. It also gives bilingual keyword examples implicitly via the Korean sentence.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Find BULC app tools by keyword (Korean or English) or category' and declares the return payload (names, descriptions, full input schemas). As a meta-discovery tool it is unmistakably distinct from every concrete sibling (shape_*, evac_*, spr_*, etc.).

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?

Clear context for invocation (keyword or category lookup) and an explicit next step: 'In the compact profile, call the tool you found with bulc_call.' It does not, however, distinguish itself from other discovery siblings such as bulc_knowledge_search or bulc_get_rules, so there is no when-not guidance.

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