성취기준 검색

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the dataset size and available search dimensions but omits any behavioral traits like pagination, response format, or performance characteristics. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words, but the second sentence could be seen as slightly verbose. The key information is front-loaded. Minor redundancy in listing parameters already in schema.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks details on return format, pagination, or behavior of the limit parameter. The example usage is helpful but incomplete. Adequate but missing some context an agent might need.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description only lists the searchable fields (keyword, school level, subject, grade, code) without adding meaning beyond the already detailed schema descriptions. No significant value added.

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 searches achievement standards from the 2022 revised curriculum, specifying scope (3285 items, all subjects and levels). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_resources or search_fulltext by focusing solely on standards.

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 provides a specific use case ('when designing environment classes') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with siblings. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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