search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool performs integrated search across multiple databases but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens with partial matches. The description is minimal and doesn't adequately disclose operational characteristics.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently state the tool's function and examples of search criteria. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning it's a read-only operation or default behaviors.

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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., result format, fields included), how results are sorted, or error handling. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing examples of search criteria (keyword, author, year) but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: '통합 검색합니다' (integrated search) across multiple academic databases for papers/documents. It specifies the resource (academic papers/documents) and scope (multiple databases), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_paper_detail' or 'list_providers'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions what the tool does but doesn't indicate scenarios where 'search' is appropriate versus 'get_paper_detail' (likely for retrieving specific paper details) or 'list_providers' (likely for listing available databases).

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