Search eclass

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, but the description adds real behavioral nuance beyond them: download hits are metadata (file_id/local_path) not content, and notice/material body scanning is deliberately restricted to courses whose names match the query for cost control. That hidden scoping limitation is exactly the kind of trait an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Five sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope, safety posture, metadata caveat, file-access workflow, cost-control limitation), with the purpose front-loaded. Slightly longer than strictly needed but no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers scope, the metadata-vs-content distinction, the file retrieval path, and a non-obvious coverage limitation. Only the absence of sibling-tool routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'query' as 검색어, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, matching rules, or format guidance for the query string that would go beyond the schema.

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 verb (통합 검색) and enumerates the exact resources covered (강의, 과제, 공지, 자료, 강의계획서, 다운로드 기록), so the agent knows the scope without opening a schema. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search tools like eclass_search_downloads or eclass_search_syllabus, which slightly caps the score.

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?

It identifies itself as a read-only connector-compatible tool and routes the agent to fetch or eclass_file_handoff when the actual file body is needed, which is useful context. However it never says when to prefer this unified search over the narrower sibling search tools, leaving the primary selection decision to inference.

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