search_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention any behavioral aspects such as rate limits, authentication, pagination behavior, or error handling. The description only covers purpose and usage, not behavioral implications.

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 efficiently structured paragraph. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence provides value: first sentence defines scope, second sentence gives critical usage tips. No redundant text.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: integrated search, domain selection, and specific options. It lacks information about return format and error handling, but is sufficient for a search tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds some extra context by explaining domain-specific options and providing examples (e.g., options.includeText, options.detailLimit). However, the schema already adequately describes 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?

The description clearly states it is an integrated search across 18 specific domains (판례·해석례·헌재·행심·조세심판·관세·국세청·공정위·개인정보위·노동위·권익위·소청심사·학칙·공사공단·공공기관·조약·영문법령). It provides usage examples for specific domains, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_law and legal_research.

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 explicit guidance on when to use specific domains (e.g., domain='precedent' for case law text, domain='nts' for tax-related NTS interpretations). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear.

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