벨로그 글 검색

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scoping behavior (entire Velog vs. user-specific), which is useful context, but it does not disclose return format, rate limits, or authentication needs. With annotations in place, this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a memorable use-case example. Every word 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 search tool with 4 parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scoping, and a practical use case. It does not explain the return structure, but the schema documents offset for pagination. Overall, it is reasonably complete, though a bit more detail about result contents would push it higher.

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 75%, with keyword, username, and offset already documented. The description's phrase 'username 을 주면 그 사람 글 안에서만 찾는다' reinforces the username meaning but is largely redundant with the schema's '이 사용자의 글로 한정'. No additional detail is provided for limit or offset beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses the specific verb '검색한다' (search) with the resource '벨로그 전체' (entire Velog), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like velog_list_posts, velog_trending_posts, and velog_recent_posts. The optional username scoping adds further precision, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 explicitly provides a concrete use case: '내가 예전에 쓴 그 글' 을 찾을 때 이 조합을 쓴다 (use this combination when looking for a post I wrote). This gives clear context for when to pair keyword with username, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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