fin_law_search

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), yet the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: results are re-ranked by financial relevance, repealed/historical/scheduled-enforcement laws are flagged, and topical law hints are attached. It does not describe result shape, counts, or pagination.

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?

Three tight sentences, with the most decision-critical information (financial-domain scope and priority) front-loaded in the bracket. Every sentence carries a distinct payload; only the bracketed form is slightly dense.

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 3-parameter read-only search with fully documented schema but no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: output shaping (relevance re-rank, status flags, hints) and the downstream handoff to fin_article. Nothing essential to correct invocation is absent, though result size/format remains unspecified.

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 all three parameters (query, basis_date, include_ordinance) are already documented with format and defaults. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (법령을 검색) scoped to 재무·세무·회계, and explicitly differentiates its role from fin_article by noting article-level content is a separate step. An agent can tell it apart from fin_ruling_search and fin_annex without opening any 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?

The bracketed prefix gives an explicit priority rule ('법령 검색은 이 도구를 우선 사용') and the closing sentence names the alternative and the condition that selects it ('조문 내용까지 필요하면 fin_article로'). It stops short of explaining when a rulings tool (fin_ruling_search) should be preferred instead, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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