notices

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavior; it discloses the search field semantics (title-only) and the result-to-detail handoff, which is real added context. It does not say anything about paging behavior, result ordering, or total counts despite the page/limit parameters, leaving a gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 resource and board options before the detail-chaining note, and nearly every clause is load-bearing. It is somewhat run-on, with the long mCode example list sitting mid-sentence and slightly interrupting the read.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the board taxonomy plus the notice_detail handoff cover the main decision points. The missing pagination guidance is the only real hole, and it is minor for a listing tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains `board` (enum-like values plus mCode examples) and `keyword` (title search), but `page` and `limit` — both defaulted and central to controlling the result set — are entirely unaddressed in both schema and description.

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 concrete resource (본교 게시판 목록) with the specific board taxonomy it covers, and explicitly routes non-covered cases elsewhere ('채용공지는 jobs'). An agent can distinguish it from notice_detail (which reads a single post) and jobs without opening a schema.

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?

Names the valid `board` values, points to site_menu for mCode discovery with concrete examples, notes that `keyword` is a title search, and prescribes the follow-up call ('결과의 [번호]를 notice_detail(번호, board)에 넘기면...'). Explicit when-to-use, alternatives, and chaining are all present.

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