search_law

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: automatic fallback to autonomous/administrative rules on zero results, abbreviation conversion, automatic notation of title changes and pending amendments, and repeal handling with successor rules. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and each clause adds a distinct behavioral detail. It is a single long sentence with multiple em-dash segments, which is compact but slightly harder to parse than a short structured summary.

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a search tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys scope, fallback behavior, special handling of repealed laws, and the intended pre-lookup role. It does not detail the exact return shape beyond lawId/mst, but that is sufficient for identifier acquisition.

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 covers both parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds extra meaning by giving example query forms ('광진구 복무조례', '외국환거래규정') and explaining automatic abbreviation/fallback behavior tied to the query parameter. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 opens with '[법령검색] 법령명·조례명·행정규칙명 키워드검색 → lawId, mst 획득', specifying a concrete verb (keyword search), resource (Korean statutes/ordinances/admin rules), and output (identifiers). It further distinguishes itself from text-retrieval siblings by stating it is for '조회 전 식별자 확보용'.

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 clearly states the tool is for securing lawId/mst before looking up statutes, ordinances, or administrative rules, giving a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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