search_dapa_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the search is based on public sources, which is useful context, but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as result ordering, filtering behavior, pagination, or any limitations. It is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction exists.

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 succinct Korean sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the key information—public-source basis, resource name, and subject scope—and every phrase earns its place. This is an appropriately sized description for a straightforward 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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is too minimal to be contextually complete. It does not explain return values, how queries should be structured, what categories control, or how this tool relates to similar search tools. The read-only annotations cover safety but not operational completeness.

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 of explaining parameters like query, limit, and categories. It completely fails to do so, mentioning only the broad knowledge types that loosely correspond to category values without explaining their meaning, format, or defaults. The description adds no value beyond the schema's structural definitions.

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 (검색합니다, 'searches'), a clear resource (DAPA_info), and a scoped set of subjects (조직·용어·업무 지식, 'organization, terminology, and work knowledge'). This makes the tool's function clear at a glance, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as search_legal or search_dapa_policy, relying on the resource and subject scope to imply the distinction.

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 when to use the tool: when searching DAPA_info for organizational, terminology, or work knowledge. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives among the many sibling search tools. The usage context is present but not fully developed.

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