search_fire_building

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only says 'search' and does not mention read-only behavior, pagination, result format, authentication requirements, or any side effects. It is minimal and not misleading, but it fails to add meaningful behavioral context.

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, concise phrase that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and the primary filter dimensions. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema and only a one-line description, the return value structure, pagination behavior, error handling, and any special conditions are entirely omitted. The description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent for invoking the tool and interpreting results, especially given the search API nature with pageNo and numOfRows parameters.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (sido, pageNo, numOfRows, approvalYear), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a brief mention of filtering by city/province and approval year, which largely overlaps with the schema. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what the schema already defines.

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 action ('search') and the resource ('specific fire-fighting target buildings'), and adds the filter dimensions by city/province and approval year. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the subject matter is distinct enough from stats, law, and precedents searches.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. The agent is left to infer applicability from the tool name alone.

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