Search Problem

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 only states the basic action (search problems) and the tag validation advice, but does not mention return format, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a targeted usage guideline. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

The schema richly documents the query syntax and parameters, but the description lacks any information about the return value or output shape (no output schema exists). It is adequate for a simple search tool but has gaps regarding what the caller receives.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, especially the query parameter's complex syntax. The description adds a small but useful semantic hint about checking tag validity, which relates to the query parameter. This provides minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 states 'BOJ 문제를 검색합니다' (searches BOJ problems), which is a specific verb+resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search-tag and search-contest by making the target resource explicit.

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: '알고리즘 태그(#태그)를 사용한 검색 전에는 반드시 'search-tag'나 'list-tag' 도구로 유효한 태그 슬러그/이름을 확인하세요' (before using tag search, verify valid tag slugs with search-tag or list-tag). This clearly instructs when to use alternative tools, though it doesn't cover all potential alternatives.

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