search_sanction

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It warns that the search only provides '제재 확인 사실' not a definitive violation assessment, explains that keyword_variants causes multiple searches merged with page ignored, and informs that results contain the keys needed for detail retrieval. This is thorough and transparent.

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 concise, using a warning icon and clear formatting. Every sentence adds value: purpose, follow-up flow, interpretative caveat, and search strategy tip. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers the search scope, key result identifiers, follow-up tool, and a recall-maximization technique. It does not detail standard pagination behavior beyond keyword_variants, but given the tool's moderate complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 80%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the intended use of keyword_variants (parallel search for recall, page parameter ignored) and connecting the result fields to get_sanction. The start/end/page parameters are left to the schema defaults, which is adequate.

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 function: '금융감독원 검사결과제재(제재공시)를 검색합니다' (searches FSS examination sanctions). It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_sanction by explaining that search results provide exam_mgmt_no+em_open_seq for follow-up detail retrieval, and differentiates its search behavior with keyword_variants for improved recall.

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 explicitly tells when to use keyword_variants (when the company name/exact reason is unknown but the case details are roughly known) and how to proceed to get_sanction for full PDF details. It does not explicitly list alternatives to avoid, but the context is clear enough that this is the search tool, while get_sanction is for fetching details.

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