search_law

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

Annotations already convey the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: automatic fallback to 자치법규/행정규칙 on zero hits, abbreviation auto-conversion, auto-annotation of renamed/pending amendments, and proactive notification of repealed rules with successor statutes. These traits materially affect how the agent interprets results and cannot be inferred from structured fields.

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 purpose and identifier output are front-loaded, and each clause (fallback, abbreviation handling, repeal notices) conveys distinct, useful behavior. It is dense and heavy for a single paragraph, with a few clauses that could be tightened, but nothing is truly wasted.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned identifiers (lawId, mst) and describing result quirks (fallback, repeal notices). For a simple 2-parameter read-only search tool, the agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description only adds a marginal note about abbreviation auto-conversion on the query input. Per the high-coverage baseline, 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource (법령명·조례명·행정규칙명 키워드검색) and even names the output identifiers (lawId, mst), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_law_bulk by naming it directly, so the two search tools are separable without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('법령·조례·행정규칙 조회 전 식별자 확보용') and names the alternative for the contrasting case (execute_tool with search_law_bulk for checking amendments across many laws). This is precise when-to-use plus a named alternative, not implied guidance.

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