discover_tools

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by clarifying that it is a meta-search over tool categories rather than a direct source of legal content, which helps prevent the agent from expecting legal text or decisions from it.

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 one dense sentence that front-loads the meta label and usage condition. It is appropriately short, though the deictic phrase '위 도구로 안 되는 경우' is slightly ambiguous when read outside the full tool list context.

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 one-parameter discovery tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, and search categories well. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns, such as matching tool names or recommendations, leaving some inference burden on the agent.

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 single 'intent' parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description reinforces and expands the parameter semantics by listing additional valid category examples such as 조세심판, 관세, 개인정보위, and 영문법령, giving the agent richer vocabulary for invoking the tool.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it is a meta tool that performs category searches over 80+ specialized Korean-law tools. The '[메타]' marker and focus on tool discovery distinguish it from sibling legal-search and retrieval tools like search_law, get_law_text, and search_decisions.

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 explicitly says to use this tool '위 도구로 안 되는 경우' (when the above tools do not work). It also gives a broad set of categories and examples, helping the agent recognize when this discovery tool is the right fallback.

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