search_law

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool performs a keyword search, returns lawId and mst, and automatically converts abbreviations. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error cases, or rate limits. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise: a single sentence with a bracketed prefix, covering purpose, input, and output. It is efficiently written but could benefit from clearer structure (e.g., bullet points). Score 4 for being front-loaded and to the point.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and output. However, it lacks details on pagination, empty results behavior, or error conditions. It is minimally complete but has gaps.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions the output (lawId, mst) and abbreviation conversion, but the schema already documents parameter meanings well. Baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool performs a keyword search of law names to obtain lawId and mst, with automatic abbreviation conversion. The verb '검색' (search) and resource '법령명' (law names) are specific. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_law_text (full text) and search_decisions (decision search), but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 implies usage for acquiring identifiers before law inquiry ('법령 조회 전 식별자 확보용'), but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools. No alternatives are mentioned.

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