Search youth policies

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about fusing data sources (curated corpus + open API) and the return structure including eligibility criteria, which enhances understanding without contradiction.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose, data sources, and usage. Every sentence is informative, though slightly verbose; could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity.

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 tool's complexity (Korean policies, two data sources, 4 parameters, output schema), the description is comprehensive: it covers usage triggers, data fusion, result structure, and next-step recommendations.

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 0%; description explains query, region, and category purpose but does not detail the 'k' parameter or format constraints for region/category. Some compensation but incomplete.

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 tool searches Korean youth policies and subsidies by free-text query, with optional region and category. It explicitly names example queries like '월세 지원' and distinguishes from sibling tools such as check_eligibility.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this when the user asks what youth policies or support money they could get, or searches by topic' and instructs to follow up with check_eligibility for qualification checking, providing clear guidance.

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