대한민국 공공데이터 메타데이터 검색

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: it specifies the snapshot date (2026-06-30), that the source is a fixed local list, that it does not access external APIs or raw data, and that license indications are merely metadata for verification. This helps set accurate expectations about data freshness and limitations.

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: the first states the action and scope, the second clarifies limitations. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy or excessive detail.

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 has 14 parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough high-level context for an agent to know what the tool does and its limitations, but it does not cover parameter semantics, result structure, or pagination behavior. It is adequate for selection but lacks depth for confident invocation without relying on parameter names alone.

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%, and the description does not explain the 14 parameters. It mentions searchable fields (name, agency, classification, format, keyword) but does not map them to schema properties like 'query', 'providers', 'formats', or 'classifications', nor does it clarify how array filters or booleans (e.g., 'include_non_data') behave. The description provides minimal compensation for the lack of schema documentation.

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 function: searching a local static list for metadata fields like name, agency, classification, format, and keyword, plus official link candidates. It uses a specific verb ('검색합니다') and resource, and its scope is delineated from sibling tools that list, fetch details, or recommend combinations.

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 the tool is for searching metadata and distinguishes itself by noting it does not query raw values or external APIs, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it. No alternatives are named, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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