개념 검색

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by stating the return fields (id, title, importance as 1–5 stars) in the absence of an output schema, but it discloses nothing about match semantics (substring vs. fuzzy), result ordering, or what happens when nothing matches.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, then return shape, then concrete examples. Every element contributes and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it searches, how to phrase the query, and what comes back. The remaining gaps are the undocumented limit parameter and unstated matching/ordering behavior, both minor but non-zero for an agent tuning result counts.

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 must carry the parameter burden. It does so partially for query by framing it as a single word and giving keyword examples, which is real added meaning beyond "type: string", but the limit parameter (1–20) is never mentioned, leaving its purpose and default undocumented anywhere.

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?

"낱말로 개념을 찾는다" gives a specific verb (find) and resource (concepts) plus the search key (a word), which implicitly distinguishes it from get_concept (id-based retrieval). It never names the sibling, so an agent must infer that get_concept is the id-lookup counterpart rather than being told.

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 phrase "낱말로" implies the entry condition: use this when you have a keyword rather than an id. The two examples ("인터럽트", "캐시") reinforce the keyword use case, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of find_concepts_for_exam_items or other siblings as alternatives.

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