kupid_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that search matches based on title containing the keyword, and specifies default count and board options. However, it does not detail case sensitivity, partial matching, or pagination 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?

The description is concise with two main sentences and a bulleted parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool has three simple parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the search scope and parameter defaults well, but lacks information on error handling or rate limits.

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 adds meaning to keyword (검색할 키워드), board (검색 대상 with options), and count (최대 결과 수, 기본값: 20). While it explains each parameter adequately, the keyword description is somewhat tautological.

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 notices, academic schedules, and scholarship notices by keyword in the KUPID portal. It specifies that items with the keyword in the title are returned, and the board parameter distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve specific boards.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (searching across boards by keyword) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. The sibling tools imply alternatives for non-search retrieval.

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