search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the return fields (ranked id, title, org_nm, etc.), which is helpful, but doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, or how the search ranking works. It adds some value beyond annotations but not a full behavioral profile.

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 concise, with the purpose front-loaded, followed by parameter hints and an example. It is not overly verbose and avoids redundancy, though it mixes languages (Korean and English) which slightly complicates parsing but remains clear.

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 description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter meanings, return fields, and an example. Since there is an output schema, return values are already documented. It lacks details on edge cases or error conditions, but for a simple search tool it is fairly complete. Minor omissions like pagination behavior prevent a perfect score.

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 explain parameters. It does so: query (natural language/topic), n (1-20), dtype (FILE/API/STD), org (provider), fields (required columns). This gives meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could be more detailed (e.g., exact allowed values for dtype).

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 searches a remote catalog by topic, using a verb ('search') and a resource ('remote catalog'). It provides a specific context (public data) and an example query. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'fetch' or 'get', which might also retrieve data, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does and lists parameters, but doesn't mention scenarios where it should be preferred or avoided. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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