discover_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It describes the tool as a category search, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., list of tool names), error handling, or authentication needs. Adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence in Korean that includes the meta purpose, usage hint, and examples. Every word serves a purpose and it is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 no output schema and one well-documented parameter, the description explains the tool's purpose and usage context. However, it lacks details about the output format or how to use the discovered tools, which is important for an agent to select and invoke subsequent tools.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'intent' parameter. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, only repeating the category search concept. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 is a meta category search for professional tools when the above tool fails, listing specific categories (조세심판, 관세, 헌재 등 80+개). It distinguishes itself from siblings by serving as a fallback discovery tool.

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 explicitly says '위 도구로 안 되는 경우' (when the above tool doesn't work), providing clear when-to-use guidance. It gives category examples but does not specify when not to use or alternative tools.

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