kcsc_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the AND-matching semantics for space-separated query words, the default domain behavior and reordering of non-default domains, and the scope limitation to name/top-level classification. This is thorough and exceeds what annotations would typically provide.

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 dense and purposeful, leading with the core purpose, then systematically covering each parameter, with the critical domain warning highlighted upfront. No sentence is wasted; it is well-structured and appropriately sized.

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 4 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description covers every parameter, the matching logic, the domain default, and the scope limitation, and routes body-text needs to a sibling. An output schema is present, so return values are already handled elsewhere. Nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description must fully document every parameter. It explains query splitting and AND logic, enumerates code_type values, defines limit as max count, and details domain default and overrides. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource (find national construction standards by name) and includes the catalog size (3,572 items). It explicitly contrasts with kcsc_grep for body-text search, making sibling differentiation clear without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly says to use kcsc_grep for body-text search, and explains the domain default behavior (bridge when empty) with guidance to set '건축' for architecture or '전체' to disable filtering. This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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