search_popular_books

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool performs a query ('조회') but does not disclose anything about output format, pagination behavior, whether it returns aggregated nationwide data, rate limits, or whether any filters are required. The read‑only nature is only implied by the word '조회', offering minimal transparency.

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 phrase, which is concise but under-specified. It conveys only the bare idea without any valuable details, making it not 'appropriately sized' – it lacks even minimal context us como pagination or result. The structure is front-loaded (naturally) but offers no information beyond a tautology-like statement.

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 the tool has 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not mention what the result looks like, how to narrow searches, or that the date range and demographic fields are key modifiers. The schema covers parameters, but the overall callability context is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics; it only repeats the tool's name-level purpose. However, because all 14 parameters are fully described with code mappings and patterns in the schema, the description does not need to compensate, so the baseline score holds.

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 a specific action ('조회합니다' - queries/retrieves) on a specific resource ('인기대출도서' - popular loan books), which clearly conveys the core purpose. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like search_popular_books_by_library or get_popular_books_by_library, which share the same resource and action pattern, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many competing siblings (e.g., search_popular_books_by_library, get_popular_books_by_library, search_books). There is no mention of what type of query this suits, how it differs from library-specific variants, or any prerequisites such as choosing a date range or region.

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