search_supplement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool does a search (read operation) and specifies search fields, but does not mention pagination, result format, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple lookup 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 two sentences (Korean and English), directly stating purpose and search criteria. No unnecessary words, and the information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no required parameters, the description should at least indicate what is returned (e.g., list of registrations, details). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the output format. However, for a simple search, it is moderately complete.

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 the schema already documents parameters. The description adds value by providing an example ingredient list ('코엔자임Q10, 비타민D'), which helps the agent understand valid values beyond the schema description.

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 Korean functional health food registrations by ingredient or product name. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('건강기능식품 인허가 정보'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on drug-related information.

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 usage when needing to find health food registrations, and specifies search criteria (ingredient or product name). While no explicit when-not or alternatives are given, the sibling tools are clearly different domains, so the usage context is clear.

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