search_rule

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it is an auxiliary tool returning only candidate lists, which is helpful, but it does not disclose any additional behavior such as pagination, result ordering, or limitations of the search. With annotations covering the main traits, a 3 is fair.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and usage guidance. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail, and every word earns its place.

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 simple search tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it covers the tool's role, its primary use case, and its relationship to the main lookup tool. It does not mention the sibling search_rule_deep, but that is not essential given the clear scope. The presence of an output schema also relieves the description from explaining return values.

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 description does not mention any parameters at all. The schema provides descriptions for campus, keyword, and full_text (60% coverage), but limit and offset are undocumented in both the schema and the description. Since the description adds zero parameter-level meaning and only partially compensates for the coverage gap, a 2 is appropriate.

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 purpose: it returns a list of rule candidates only, and explicitly contrasts itself with lookup_dongguk_rule for general rule questions. This clearly distinguishes it from the main lookup tool and from other siblings like search_rule_deep by implying it is the lightweight candidate-search variant.

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 an explicit when-to-use: '규정 후보 목록만 필요할 때' (when only a candidate list is needed) and a direct alternative: 'lookup_dongguk_rule을 먼저 사용하세요' (use lookup_dongguk_rule first for general questions). This provides both positive and negative usage guidance.

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