searchGovernmentSupport

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by describing the deduplication behavior and default source selection. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, error conditions, or what the unified result format looks like. For a complex 8-parameter search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant 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?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences that convey the core functionality and key capabilities. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information about the tool's integrated search approach and parameter options. It could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning the deduplication earlier, but overall it's well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides good context about the integrated search approach and deduplication. However, it doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or important behavioral constraints. For a search tool that aggregates multiple sources, more information about result structure and limitations would be helpful.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions keyword, field, region, and source selection capabilities, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('통합 탐색', '동시에 검색', '중복 공고를 제거', '통합 결과를 반환') and resources ('기업마당·K-Startup·중소벤처24'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning it searches multiple sources simultaneously and removes duplicates, unlike the single-source search_gov_support_* tools.

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 explicit usage guidance by stating it searches multiple sources simultaneously and removes duplicate announcements. It also specifies the default sources (bizinfo + kstartup) and mentions alternative sources can be selected, clearly differentiating it from the single-source sibling tools (search_gov_support_bizinfo, search_gov_support_kstartup, search_gov_support_smes24).

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