search_open_documents

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive; the description adds operationally useful facts the annotations cannot: no API key required (auth), ten raw results per page (pagination), and that counts refer to documents rather than policies (result semantics). It also discloses the default three-way result split, which is real behavioral context.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each clause carries information, but the body is three long semicolon-chained run-ons where enum semantics, pagination, and counting caveats are packed together. Dense enough that a reader must re-parse, though nothing is truly wasted.

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?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema, it goes beyond the minimum by describing the default return groups (items, reviewItems, relatedDocuments) and warning that counts are documents. It stops short of describing what a result item contains (e.g., whether a URL/id is returned for follow-up with read_open_document).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry all six parameters, and it does explain startDate/endDate format (YYYYMMDD, mandatory), both enums, and page usage. The q parameter gets only strategy advice ('present actual candidate project types, not arbitrary documents') rather than an explicit statement of query syntax or title-only matching, leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Live search of ... municipal document titles') and bounds the corpus (Korean information-disclosure portal). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling read_open_document by routing attachments/evidence there, so an agent can separate the two without opening a schema.

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?

Gives condition-based routing: purpose 'projects' for candidate separation vs 'documents' for everything, scope 'original' vs 'all', and 'Inspect up to three pages if needed' as a stopping rule. It also names the alternative tool for attachments, covering when not to use this one.

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