kcsc_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that only name and top-level classification are searched, not body text, and that non-default domains are pushed back in results. It also warns about the implications of using building standards in bridge design. This is extensive behavioral context beyond any 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 long but every sentence adds value: purpose, parameters, default behavior, exclusions, and a domain warning. It is structured with line breaks for readability and front-loads the core purpose before diving into details. No redundant phrases.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (default domain, multiple parameter nuances), the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly: purpose, usage, parameter semantics, behavioral limitations, and alternative routing. An output schema exists, so return format details are unnecessary. Complete for the context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains that query requires all space-separated words to appear, code_type restricts to listed values, limit sets max count, and domain has a default of '교량' plus special handling for '강구조'. All four parameters are meaningfully described beyond their schema titles and defaults.

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 finds national construction standards by name, listing 3,572 items across KDS/KCS etc. It uses a specific verb ('찾는다' / finds) and resource ('국가건설기준'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling kcsc_grep (full-text search), so an agent can tell them apart 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 gives explicit guidance: use for name-based search, not for content search (referring to kcsc_grep as alternative). It also explains the domain default behavior ('비우면 교량이 기본'), how to narrow by code_type, and the caution about building standards affecting bridge design. Clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use are present.

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