공정위 공식 Q&A 검색

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers the corpus size, the no-key requirement, the presence of abolished standards in old documents, and the mandatory practice of reading caveats and preferring 2026 manual answers. It does not describe output structure or pagination, but the safety warnings are substantial and valuable.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose and corpus in sentence 1, intended use in sentence 2, then bullet-pointed tips and a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the warning is non-redundant. It is slightly longer than minimal but well organized.

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 3 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, how to search, and critical caveats about outdated content. It tells the agent that results include caveats and that lit26-* entries should be prioritized, which is sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation, though the exact result format is not spelled out.

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 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds only a minor tip that search terms work best as core nouns and that category narrows by disclosure type—both largely redundant with the schema. This is a small increment over the baseline.

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 it searches 430 official Q&As extracted from FTC guides/FAQs/manuals, including 79 key cases from the 2026 manual, and explicitly frames its purpose as providing official answers for edge cases that rules alone cannot decide. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_disclosures and find_precedents by focusing on authoritative Q&A content.

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?

It gives clear context: use when rules alone cannot determine a boundary case, with search tips on core nouns and category filtering. It also warns to read each result's caveats and prefer 2026 manual entries (lit26-*) over outdated documents. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of the highest mark.

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