advanced_alio_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a search (presumably read-only), but does not explicitly state behavioral traits such as idempotency or lack of side effects. While the search nature implies safety, explicit disclosure would be better.

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 with an example in parentheses, front-loading the key purpose. It is concise and to the point, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters explicitly).

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 complexity of the tool (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a clear overview and usage example. It lacks details about return format or pagination, but the schema's max parameter and the tool's search nature provide sufficient context for basic usage.

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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the combined filter capability and giving a real-world example, which helps the agent understand how to use parameters together effectively.

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 '복합 필터 검색' (complex filter search) and lists specific filters (category, institution type, ministry, date range, title keyword), with an example query. It effectively distinguishes this tool from simpler search alternatives by emphasizing combination of multiple filters.

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 clear usage scenario through the example '과기부 산하 K1100 분류 중 최근 1년 개정', indicating when to use this tool for precise combined queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternative simpler search tools.

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