search_problems_programmers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does exceptionally well: it reveals Puppeteer-based scraping, response latency, page size, return format (markdown table with specific columns), and the reason for slowness (JavaScript rendering). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with clear sections (intro, examples, limitations, response format, warnings). It is slightly redundant as the '중요' warning repeats the 3-5 second latency already stated in limitations, but overall every section serves a purpose and the front-loaded intro is effective.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the response format (markdown table with columns). It also covers platform-specific behavior, constraints, and usage examples, making it complete for a moderately complex search tool with 5 optional parameters.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete usage examples for levels, order, query, and page, and by clarifying the levels range (0-5). This goes beyond the plain schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail every parameter's syntax.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '프로그래머스 문제를 검색합니다' (searches Programmers problems) and mentions filtering by difficulty, sort, and keyword. It distinguishes from the BOJ sibling by explicitly referencing BOJ's speed and advising platform confirmation.

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 explicit usage examples for various parameter combinations (levels, order, query, page) and clearly states when to use this tool by instructing to confirm the platform when unspecified. It also mentions limitations like 3-5 second response time, helping users decide if this is appropriate.

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