search_ship_terms

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that it searches across English, Korean, abbreviations, and descriptions. Does not mention destructive behavior or authentication needs, but as a search tool, read-only nature is inferred.

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?

Well-structured with IMPORTANT note, examples, and Args section. Some redundancy, but overall efficient for a search tool with multilingual capability.

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 complex multilingual search and presence of output schema, description explains return fields (id, English, Korean, abbreviation, description). Provides sufficient context for an agent to use effectively.

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 0%, but description adds full semantics: query can be English or Korean, max_results has default 10 and max 50. Provides concrete examples that illustrate parameter usage.

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?

Clearly states it searches shipbuilding terminology by keyword, with explicit mention of Korean language support. Distinguishes from siblings like get_term_detail and translate_term by positioning itself as the primary search for any shipbuilding question.

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 to use this for ANY shipbuilding question, including Korean terms, with examples. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but context implies alternatives for specific detail or translation.

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