search_freight_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It the partial-match fields and empty-query behavior (returns firstlimit' results), which is valuable. However, it does not mention result ordering beyond the vague 'from the front', case sensitivity, output structure, or potential errors. These are minor gaps for a simple read-only search, the description does not fully cover behavioral nuances.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences covering core search behavior and an edge case. It is front-loaded with the tool's title and total record count, then immediately gives operational details. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema, no), the description is nearly complete for an agent to call it correctly. It covers what fields are searched, partial-match behavior, and the empty-query case. The only minor omission is the precise ordering of results, but that is unlikely to hinder correct invocation.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must and does explain the parameters: it states that the query searches across the three fields and that limit controls the maximum number of results, including the behavior when query is. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types 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 it searches internal freight codes with partial matching on classification code, Korean name, and English name. It also gives the total count (961 items), which signals the dataset size. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like decode_freight_code (which decodes a code) and other 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 when to use this tool (for searching freight codes by partial match) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as decode_freight_code or provide any when-not-to-use guidance. The empty query behavior and limit are explained, but explicit routing among siblings is absent.

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