search_all_collections

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the non-destructive search nature, parameter meanings, and return format. However, it does not mention idempotency, rate limits, pagination, or authorization needs. For a search tool, the basic behavior is clear but lacks depth.

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: one sentence for purpose, followed by parameter explanations and return format. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return structure. It omits potential details like pagination behavior or performance implications, but for a straightforward search tool, it provides sufficient context for 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'field' parameter (Korean labels or codes) and 'limit' (max results per collection). While 'query' is left implicit, its purpose as a search term is obvious. The description adds significant value beyond the schema's bare types.

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 all collections simultaneously and returns per-collection results, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_in_dir (directory-specific) and search_db (database-specific). The verb 'search' and resource 'all collections' are specific and 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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It only states what it does, without mentioning when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer for more targeted searches. This leaves the agent without explicit decision cues.

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