Search Syllabus

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default-to-current-term behavior when year/term are omitted and the shape of the candidate list returned.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then default behavior, then return content and routing. No filler; each sentence contributes actionable information.

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?

For a read-only search tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, default term, return content and the downstream call, which is nearly complete. The remaining gap is clarifying how the 'by' search mode (subject vs professor) changes behavior.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage, the schema already documents year and term, and the description largely repeats the year/term default already stated in the schema. The 'by' enum (subject/professor) is never explained in the description, so it adds little semantic value.

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?

States a specific verb (검색/search) and resource (강의계획서/syllabus), including the [mportal] scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the detail sibling eclass_get_syllabus by describing itself as returning a candidate list rather than full details.

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?

Clearly routes the agent: it returns candidates so the caller can decide and then call eclass_get_syllabus for details, and it states the year/term default. It does not, however, say when to pick this over other search siblings like search or eclass_get_courses.

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