search_kosha_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the return fields, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether there are any side effects, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. The mention of '캐시 보유 여부 반환' (returns cache availability) adds a minor behavioral detail, but overall the description is sparse.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output. It contains no redundant words and is easy to scan, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core function and return fields, and the schema covers parameter optionality. However, it lacks explicit context about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like `get_kosha_guide`, and could benefit from a note on intended use cases.

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 fully describes the single `keyword` parameter, including its meaning (규정명/번호 키워드) and optionality (생략 시 전체), providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('검색' = search) and resource ('KOSHA GUIDE 기술지침 목록' = KOSHA GUIDE technical guideline list), and specifies the return fields (regulation number, name, publication date, PDF link, cache availability). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool `get_kosha_guide`, which likely retrieves a single guide rather than searching a list.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The use case is implied by the resource name 'KOSHA GUIDE', but alternatives or exclusions are not mentioned. An agent must infer that this tool is for KOSHA guide searches versus other search tools like `search_law` or `search_admrule`.

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