메모 검색

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search scope (title, content, tags) but doesn't describe other behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, case sensitivity, error handling, or rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and search scope. Every sentence earns its place by adding value—the first defines the action, and the second clarifies the fields searched. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which means return values needn't be explained in the description), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose and search scope. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling, which could be relevant for a search tool, preventing a score of 5.

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 description adds minimal semantic context beyond the input schema. It states that the keyword is used to search across title, content, and tags, which slightly elaborates on the schema's '검색 키워드' (search keyword) description. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the parameter adequately. The description doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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: '키워드로 메모를 검색합니다' (search notes by keyword), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like create_note, delete_note, and update_note by focusing on search rather than mutation operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternative search tools (none listed), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 implies usage context by stating '제목, 내용, 태그에서 검색합니다' (search in title, content, tags), which suggests when to use this tool—for keyword-based searches across multiple fields. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (no alternatives listed) or any exclusions. The usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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