find_timezone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial-substring search behavior, but does not mention case sensitivity, whether multiple matches are returned, or what happens with no matches. For a simple search tool, this is adequate but could be more informative.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence plus a parameter explanation. Every word adds value, with no redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers its core purpose and behavior. An output schema exists, so return values are not described in the text, which is acceptable. However, the description does not mention any filters or limitations (e.g., whether the search is case-insensitive), leaving minor gaps for a complete understanding.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and type ('query', string) with no description. The description adds meaning by defining it as a search term and giving concrete examples (Seoul, New_York, Europe), which compensates for the 0% schema coverage and helps the agent understand expected input.

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?

Description clearly states it searches IANA timezone names by partial substring, using the specific verb '검색한다' (searches). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like convert_time and get_current_time, which perform different operations.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: it is for finding IANA timezone names using partial substrings. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. Given the context of sibling tools, it is reasonable but not explicit.

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