search_libraries

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 action '검색합니다' (searches), which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose whether results are paginated, whether any filters are required, or what the response format looks like. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about the tool's operational behavior.

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 a single, short sentence with no redundant or filler content. It conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the message.

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?

With 5 parameters, all optional, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what the search returns, how to combine parameters, or what typical usage looks like. The schema covers parameter details, but the description fails to provide operational context, such as whether a pagination is required, whether a region must be specified, or what kind of results are expected. For a tool with this complexity, the description is insufficient.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, including enum values, patterns, and usage hints like 'search_library_codes 도구로 검색하세요'. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 the verb '검색' (search) and the resource '공공도서관 정보' (public library information), with the scope '전국' (nationwide). This clearly conveys the core function and hints at its nationwide scope, distinguishing it from location-specific siblings like search_nearby_libraries. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 other search tools such as search_nearby_libraries, search_libraries_by_book, or search_library_codes. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred or when it should be avoided. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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