search_errata

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

The description discloses the return value ('errata' - corrected search term), which is useful behavioral information. However, since no annotations are present, it is the sole source of transparency. It does not cover edge cases (e.g., no typo found), error behavior, or explicitly state that the operation is read-only, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 exceptionally concise and front-loaded. It states the core function in the first phrase and follows with the return value. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and return value. However, it misses usage context (e.g., use it as a preprocessing step for search tools) and behavioral details like behavior for well-formed queries. It is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'query' parameter already described as '교정할 검색어' (search term to correct). The description reinforces this meaning but does not add additional constraints, examples, or syntax guidance beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 explicitly states the tool corrects typos in search terms ('오타 교정 — 검색어의 오타를 교정합니다'). The verb and resource are clear, and it is distinctly different from sibling search tools which execute searches rather than correct input.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used before other search tools to fix user typos, nor does it exclude any context. The description lacks explicit contingency and alternative references.

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