monitor_search

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 reveals only that results follow monitoring-screen criteria (undefined) and are period-based; it is silent on read-only nature, pagination via maxRows, result shape, ordering, and how this differs from raw queries. The read verb implies safety but does not state it.

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?

A single dense Korean sentence with zero filler, repetition, or schema echoing. The verb and resource are front-loaded and the qualifying constraint follows naturally. It is appropriately sized, though there is no additional structure to organize usage or behavioral context.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must independently explain behavior and return semantics. It leaves the meaning of 'monitoring criteria' vague, does not mention that maxRows controls result truncation (default 500), and says nothing about the response format. For a data-query tool with four parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 100%, so all four parameters (deviceId, startDate, endDate, maxRows) already carry types, formats, and constraints in the schema. The description only restates the device and period concepts without adding new format, default, or interaction details, so the baseline 3 for fully covered schemas is correct.

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 uses a specific verb (조회한다 - retrieves) with a defined resource (측정기의 기간별 데이터 - device's period-based data), and adds a distinguishing qualifier 'same criteria as the monitoring screen.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like data_search or monitor_rose_search, and the 'monitoring criteria' itself is left undefined.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are referenced. The phrase 'same criteria as the monitoring screen' implies a usage context, but it does not help an agent choose between this and the many sibling data/monitor/search tools, nor does it state any exclusions.

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