search_material

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search and sort behavior, but lacks details such as whether the search is case-sensitive, if it supports partial matches, pagination, or any system limits. For a search tool, more transparency about result ordering and scope is expected.

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 single sentence in Korean that conveys all necessary information without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, appropriate for a simple search tool.

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 only one required parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (though not described here), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core function and ordering. However, it does not elaborate on the output format or whether multiple matches are returned, but the presence of an output schema likely handles that. For a straightforward tool, completeness is adequate.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage (only one parameter) but description coverage is 0% (no param description in schema). The description adds that the query parameter is searched for in the title, which provides basic semantic meaning. However, it does not specify format, allowed characters, or whether the query is a single term or phrase. This is a minimal improvement over the schema alone.

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 searches for accumulated materials by title containing a query term, sorted by latest. It includes a specific verb (find/search), resource (accumulated materials), scope (title contains search term), and ordering (latest). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool generate_book_from_markdown, which creates materials rather than searching.

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 implies the tool should be used when you need to find materials by their title with results in latest order. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given only one sibling (generate), the context is clear enough. No exclusionary or conditional guidance is provided.

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