keyword_search

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: substring matching, character-count TF normalization, no word boundaries, result context, error fallback strategy. No contradictions or gaps.

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?

Well-structured with distinct sections (description, strategy, critical rules, examples, args). Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or verbosity.

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 complexity (5 params, no annotations, but output schema exists), the description is comprehensive. It covers usage, rules, examples, parameter details, and even a fallback strategy, ensuring an AI agent can use the tool correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter: rcept_no (14-digit), keywords (1-5, include variants, omit particles), match_mode (ANY/ALL), max_results (default 5, max 50), stock_code (optional 6-digit). Adds significant value beyond the 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 performs 'Korean full-text keyword search across a parsed DART report', specifying the action, resource, and scope. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like download_dart_report or get_report_toc, which serve different purposes.

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 <strategy> section explicitly instructs to use this for targeted fact-finding and provides fallback guidance. <critical_rules> and <examples> offer detailed, actionable usage criteria, including keyword selection and morphological variants.

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