search_institutions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the search capability and org_code role, failing to mention if it is read-only, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The minimal information does not sufficiently inform an AI agent about the tool's behavioral traits.

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?

Two concise sentences: first clearly states function and search dimensions, second adds critical context about org_code as entry point. No redundant information, efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic functionality and the role of org_code but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or pagination. It is minimally adequate for a simple search tool but leaves gaps.

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 compensate. It maps the three search criteria (name, type, ministry) to likely parameters 'query', 'org_type', 'ministry', adding some meaning. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or provide detailed semantics for each parameter. The contribution is moderate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb '검색합니다' (search) and resource '공공기관' (public institutions) with search dimensions (name, type, ministry). It also mentions org_code as entry point for other tools. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'find_institutions_by_criteria', which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

Description implies usage context: search by name/type/ministry, and org_code is a key to other tools. But it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_institutions_by_criteria' or other search tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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