search_standards

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses three non-obvious behaviors: automatic expansion of industry abbreviations, automatic synonym retry on zero results, and default exclusion of unapproved drafts. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 and well-structured: it opens with the main purpose, then covers key behaviors and follow-up usage. Every sentence provides useful information without padding.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it mentions the result contains stdNum, explains the zero-result retry behavior, and clarifies draft filtering. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke and chain the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that abbreviations in the keyword are automatically expanded to standard terms, and it echoes the include_drafts behavior. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 searches across standard types (K-IFRS, K-GAAP, etc.) and returns counts of keyword occurrences. It specifies the exact behavior (whole search, counts) and even provides follow-up tool guidance, distinguishing it from sibling search tools.

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 usage context clearly: use this to find which standards contain a keyword, then chain with get_standard_index or get_paragraph. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it relative to alternatives like search_qna, but the context is unambiguous.

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