search_privacy_guides

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key details: BM25 retrieval method, total chunk count (457), individual doc_type specifics (dates, chunk numbers), and automatic PIPC attribution. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or mention rate limits, though as a search tool this is implicitly safe.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core function, and structured logically. It could condense the doc_type details slightly, but overall it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 description lacks details about the return format (e.g., fields, structure). While it mentions attribution and page info attachment, the absence of output schema or explicit return shape leaves a gap. For a search tool, basic response schema would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description enriches the doc_type enum by providing the actual count and release date for each category, adding value beyond the schema. The query and display parameters are adequately explained.

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 it performs BM25 search over four PIPC privacy guides (qa, small_business, cctv, sectoral), distinguishing from siblings by explicitly naming search_privacy_cases and search_law as alternatives for different content types.

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 explicit guidance on when to use alternative tools: 'search_privacy_cases로 실제 상담 사례, search_law로 관련 법조문'. It also highlights the unique value (PIPC practical guidance not available from law API), aiding appropriate tool selection.

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