search_nts_publications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: no API key required, public query, and a 1-day cache for identical requests. It stops short of richer detail (pagination, result size behavior), keeping it at a solid 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then cleanly labeled sections for when-to-use, return shape, and operational notes. Dense but not padded. The Korean/English mix is slightly redundant in the opening line but earns its place for bilingual routing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by specifying the result object fields (book, publish date, field, department, excerpt, link). Combined with the cache/key notes and 3-param schema, an agent has nearly everything needed, though result-set behavior (paging, total count) is unmentioned.

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% and includes examples for the query parameter plus enum/default/max for n and lang, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: full-text search inside NTS official guidebooks and reports, with a parenthetical enumerating the covered publication types (transfer pricing, APA reports, overseas business guides, filing guides). This is concrete and scoped, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like casebook_search or search_tax_rulings, which an agent must infer from the publication-type list.

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 '언제' clause gives a clear trigger: use when explanation is needed from NTS's officially published practitioner guides. That is good context, but it offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., use casebook_search for case law), so the agent must infer the boundary against siblings.

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