search_qna

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals non-obvious behaviors: results include fullContent, a vintage_warning is appended when cited standards have been revised, and an automatic similar-term retry occurs on zero results. These details go well beyond a generic 'search' description, though it does not address safety or permission aspects.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two sentences containing high-value behavioral details. No redundant or filler wording is present.

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 description captures critical search-specific behaviors (fullContent inclusion, vintage_warning, auto-retry) and context (7 categories). It does not detail the full response shape, but no output schema exists and page/rows are defined in the schema, so the level of completeness is adequate for a search tool.

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 80% (page lacks a description, but types, keyword, rows, and standard_filter have detailed descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('검색합니다' = searches) and resource ('K-IFRS/K-GAAP 관련 질의응답' = Q&A), clearly distinguishing it from standard search tools like search_standards. The mention of 7 categories (회계기준원·금융감독원·IFRS해석위원회 등) further scopes the tool's purpose.

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 implies use for searching Q&A content but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like get_qna or accounting_search. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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