search_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains that feedback becomes material for golden set/connector backlog, which is a side effect. However, it does not mention persistence, idempotency, or any associated risks, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single sentence and relatively brief, but it is somewhat run-on and could be restructured for better readability. Still, no redundant content.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the main purpose and the boolean logic. However, it leaves out details about the document_id parameter and does not fully address the query's role, so it is adequate but not 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?

The description mentions 'useful' and 'query' (as '무응답 쿼리') but does not explain 'document_id' at all. Since document_id is required, the incomplete parameter coverage significantly reduces clarity.

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 is for providing feedback on search result quality, with explicit instructions for setting useful=true/false. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'records' or 'submits', making the action slightly implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling record_* tools (e.g., record_decision, record_learning). The description only explains the true/false condition, not situational usage or alternatives.

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