precedent_search

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses output behavior (returns short preview and preview_kind), citation constraints (only url used as citation link, only '원문' previews are directly quotable), and the follow-up workflow to precedent_dive. This adds notable behavioral context not available in annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and mandatory condition, then proceeds to outputs, follow-up routing, and parameter details. Each sentence carries operational value; the length is proportionate to the complexity of a 6-parameter search tool with nuanced usage rules.

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 absence of schema descriptions and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential context: parameter semantics, mandatory-argument constraint (despite schema showing 0 required), return type, citation rules, and when to escalate to precedent_dive. No critical information for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: query is defined as noun-stem keywords excluding case numbers, case_number is given with parsing examples, court_level is enumerated ('1심'|'2심'|'대법원'|'헌재'), court_name includes partial-matching examples, and year_from/year_to are explained as scope filters. All six parameters receive meaningful guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('판례 검색') and details two search modes: exact case_number lookup and keyword-based similar precedent retrieval. It also defines its domain role as the basic tool for civil, criminal, administrative, and family dispute inquiries, clearly separating it from siblings like statute_lookup and sentence_statistics.

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?

It specifies when to use the tool ('민·형사·행정·가사 분쟁 질의의 기본 도구', '주장·전망의 근거를 유사 판례의 실제 결과로 뒷받침할 때') and provides a follow-up instruction to call precedent_dive for full-text needs. However, it stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternative tools as exclusions.

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