hwp_text_search

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

No annotations provided. Description states it only searches, does not replace. It does not explicitly state whether it modifies the document (though implied not). Could mention non-destructive nature more clearly.

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 sentences with front-loaded purpose. Each word serves a purpose, no 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?

No output schema, but description mentions returns positions and count. Could be more detailed on output format. For a simple search tool with 2 params, this is mostly sufficient.

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%; both parameters have descriptions that match the description. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema for 'search' param and does not mention 'max_results' explicitly.

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 verb (검색하다), resource (문서), and action (반환하다). It distinguishes from replacement tools by explicitly noting '치환 없이 검색만 합니다'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: to check existence or count occurrences. Implies when not to use (not for replacement). Does not name specific alternative tools but sibling tools include find/replace variants.

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