search_legal_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a meaningful distinction: searching the local index versus explicitly querying the official API. It also implies a read-only operation, but it does not address official API rate limits, authentication, or consequences of upstream calls.

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 Korean sentence with no filler or repetition. However, it is so brief that it under-serves the complexity of 11 parameters, so it earns strong concision credit rather than maximum completeness.

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?

A complex search tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions needs much more context than this one sentence provides. The output schema may clarify return shape, but invocation behavior, mode selection, and optional-filter semantics remain largely unexplained.

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 has 11 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only hints at the local/upstream provider distinction. The description does not explain query, filters, cursor, target, jurisdiction, document_type, or response_type, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 identifies a clear action (검색/조회) and concrete resources: the local legal index and the official Ministry of Government Legislation API. It distinguishes this tool from legal-document retrieval or tax research, though the dual 'local or upstream' phrasing leaves some ambiguity about the default mode.

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 two usage modes but gives no criteria for choosing between the local index and the official API, and it never mentions when to prefer this tool over siblings such as search_knowledge or get_legal_document. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.

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