search_decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: default case search targets case names only, and text retrieval is opt-in via includeText/detailLimit. It does not mention rate limits or return format, but for a read-only search this is solid added value.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the integrated-search scope leads, followed by targeted parameter-selection tips. No filler sentences; each clause carries a concrete instruction.

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 6 parameters, a nested options object, and no output schema, the description covers search modes and domain routing well but omits return shape, pagination behavior, and how results relate to get_decision_text. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), and the description goes beyond it by documenting options.includeText and options.detailLimit, which are absent from the schema's options description, and by clarifying the search mode semantics for discovery vs. name lookup. It adds meaningful routing meaning to the domain and options parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: an integrated search (통합검색) across 18 named Korean-law domains, and lists them. However, it never names the sibling it is not — search_law, get_decision_text, or legal_research — so the agent cannot fully disambiguate from siblings without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives conditional guidance for parameter selection: domain='precedent' + includeText for full case text, search='both' for doctrine/fact-pattern discovery, domain='nts' for tax-authority interpretations. But it offers no when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives routing against search_law or get_decision_text, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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