fin_ruling_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it returns a merged list, and it discloses sorting behavior (most-recent-first where domain ordering is verified, otherwise date order with the reason stated). It does not cover pagination or result limits.

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?

Dense single paragraph with no filler; the priority directive and the alternative are front-loaded. Slightly heavy nesting of clauses, but every clause carries information.

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 fields (document number, date, title) and the ordering behavior. Safe-read profile is covered by annotations. Complete enough to call correctly, with only pagination/limits left unaddressed.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the four search domains (mapping to the domains enum) and reinforces the basis_date cutoff semantics, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (search) and enumerates the four aggregated resources (NTS rulings, Tax Tribunal decisions, MOLEG interpretations, court precedents across all instances) plus the returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from sibling fin_law_search by scoping to '재무·세무·회계 전용' and routing full-text needs to fin_nts_ruling.

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 says to use this tool first for rulings/tribunal/precedent queries and names the alternative (fin_nts_ruling) for retrieving ruling body text. The when-to-use and the alternative are both stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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