search_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about natural-language matching and which keywords surface authentication APIs, going slightly beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose with examples, and the second covers category narrowing and auth-related search terms. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition or filler.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema and annotation coverage, the description is complete. It explains the query language, provides examples, enumerates valid categories, and handles special auth-related searches. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by showing realistic query examples (e.g., '매수', '실시간 체결통보') and listing category values inline, which helps an agent choose the right keyword and category beyond the schema definitions alone.

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's purpose: it finds/search APIs using natural-language queries, with concrete examples like search_api('삼성전자 현재가'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as get_api_detail or list_categories, but the verb '찾습니다' and resource 'API' make the core purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: use natural-language keywords, optionally narrow by category, and use specific authentication-related terms to find auth APIs. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives, so it does not reach 5, but the guidance is concrete and actionable.

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