search_benefits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds real behavioral semantics beyond them: results exclude eligibility judgments, multiple space-separated words are AND-matched, and sido/sigungu scope the search to local-government projects. It still doesn't mention pagination, result freshness, or empty-result behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states purpose, scope and examples, followed by a compact Args block. Every line earns its place; only the terse sigungu line could be clearer without adding length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers scope, the eligibility carve-out, and all four parameters. The main residual gap is the unaddressed overlap with the find_benefits sibling.

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 carries the full burden and largely meets it: query semantics (all words must be present), sido as a residence filter for local projects, sigungu, and limit with default 20 and maximum 50. Only sigungu's relationship to sido is left implicit.

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 and resource (키워드로 정부·지자체 혜택을 검색한다) and adds a scope qualifier (자격 판정 없이) plus concrete example queries, so an agent can distinguish it from check_eligibility. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling find_benefits, which appears to be the closest overlap.

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 parenthetical '(자격 판정 없이)' implies when this tool is appropriate versus an eligibility tool, and the example queries hint at suitable inputs. But no alternative sibling is named explicitly and there is no statement of when NOT to use it (e.g. versus find_benefits or get_benefit_detail), leaving routing partly to inference.

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