search_legal_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to cover those. It adds useful context that the tool returns the latest detailed body and provisions together, but it does not explain how the combined operation handles pagination, missing versions, or API failures.

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 sentence with no filler. It is concise and easy to parse, though it could be slightly better structured by separating the search step from the detail-retrieval behavior.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too thin to be complete. It does not describe the return shape, which documents are considered 'candidates', how the latest version is selected, or what happens when a document has no matching provision.

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 17%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not. The mention of 'latest' vaguely connects to asOfDate and currentOnly, but limit, types, and forceRefresh remain unexplained and uncompensated.

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 operation: searching candidate documents in the 국가법령정보 API and retrieving the latest full text and provisions for each. This goes beyond a generic verb and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling search/detail tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_legal, get_legal_detail, or query_legal_api. The phrase 'search and retrieve together' implies a combined workflow, but no exclusions or comparison are provided.

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