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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple search statement by adding two meaningful caveats: single-core-keyword precision and the warning that keyword hits are not verified citations to current statutes. These are genuine behavioral traits an agent needs.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by essential usage caveats. No wasted words; every sentence carries operational meaning.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides sufficient scope, query guidance, and an important evidentiary caveat. It could mention result handling or ordering, but all essentials for calling the tool are present.

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 schema only describes 'limit' (default 5, max 15) but leaves 'query' undocumented. The description compensates by explaining query semantics: a single core keyword is accurate, which is useful for invocking the tool correctly. Thus it adds value beyond the schema.

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 and resource: '전문검색한다' with explicit scope of Supreme Court/High Court precedents and Tax Tribunal rulings. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_articles or search_treaties, which target different legal document types.

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 a clear usage context: search when you need case precedents or tax tribunal decisions. The note '단일 핵심 키워드가 정확함' provides practical guidance on query formulation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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