search_legal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds some source context ('공식 국가법령정보 API') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as result shape, pagination, or API limitations.

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?

A single front-loaded Korean sentence with no filler; every phrase earns its place. It is concise but is arguably too thin for the tool's complexity, which is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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?

With 7 parameters, 43% schema coverage, no output schema, and many sibling tools, one sentence is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and predict its response. Missing details include valid type categories in practice, default behavior of currentOnly, handling of asOfDate, return/response structure, and when to select this over sibling search tools.

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 only 43%; query, asOfDate, and forceRefresh have schema docs, but limit, types, currentOnly, and organization do not. The description's list of categories roughly maps to types but adds no detail on how parameters work, defaults, or unsupported values, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb '검색합니다' and names the resource '공식 국가법령정보 API', enumerating the covered categories (법령, 행정규칙, 판례, 해석례). It makes the tool's scope clear but does not explicitly position it against siblings like search_legal_content or query_legal_api, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over the many siblings such as search_legal_content, query_legal_api, or search_dapa_legal_catalog. The description states only what the tool searches; it gives no exclusions, preconditions, or alternative routing.

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