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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the search scope and the 150k+ document corpus, and hints at behavior with '단일 핵심 키워드가 정확함' (single core keyword is accurate), which implies multi-token natural-language queries may be less reliable. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, sorting, or what happens with empty/no results. For a read-only search tool this is somewhat adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and scope, and a useful usage hint. No filler. Could include a bit more guidance on result behavior, but it is concise and structured well for quick parsing.

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?

For a simple search tool with two params and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, scope, and a usage tip. Gaps remain: no explicit when-to-use-vs-siblings, no mention of result format or pagination, and no exclusion of administrative rulings vs court cases. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent to predict response behavior.

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 50%: 'limit' has a description (default 5, max 15), but 'query' has no description. The description adds context that 'query' should be a single core keyword for best accuracy, which partially compensates. However, it doesn't specify the expected language, format, or how limit behaves beyond the schema. Baseline 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 explicitly states this tool searches case precedents and Tax Tribunal decisions, with a scope (Supreme Court/High Court cases, Tax Tribunal rulings, 150k+ documents) that distinguishes it from sibling search tools (search_articles, search_treaties, search_interpretations). It includes a usage note about single core keyword precision. It could be improved by naming sibling alternatives more directly, but the resource and verb are clear.

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 gives an implied usage guideline: a single core keyword is accurate, suggesting this tool is best for focused keyword searches rather than broad queries. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings like search_interpretations or search_annexes, nor does it state exclusions or alternative tools. The context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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