kakao_book_search

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only/open-world. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the external Kakao API pagination cap of 2,500 records (50 pages × 50 items) and the cap_hit=true signal when total_count exceeds that. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or failure modes, but for a read-only search tool this is solid.

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 uses a clear, front-loaded summary followed by one line per parameter and a short warning block. Every sentence conveys necessary operational information, and there is no filler or repetition of the title/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 five parameters, no descriptions in the schema, and no output schema, the description covers all call parameters, defaults, ranges, and a notable API limitation (cap_hit). It stops short of describing the full return shape and does not discuss when to prefer sibling tools, but nothing blocks an agent from constructing a valid request.

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 carries the full burden for parameters. It compensates well by explaining query, target (with allowed values and default all), sort (accuracy/latest with default), page range, size range/default, and the pagination cap. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema 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 opens by identifying a concrete action and resource ('카카오 Daum 책 검색 API로 도서를 검색합니다'), and the tool name/siblings make it distinct from status, ISBN, and collect operations. The verb '검색' and the book domain leave no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 makes it clear that this is the book-search operation and requires a query, but it never names sibling tools or states when to choose search over status/isbn/collect. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly routed, and there are no when-not-to-use conditions.

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