search_decisions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining that the tool searches across 18 domains and can include full text when specified. No contradictions 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 concise (three sentences, ~250 characters) and front-loaded with the tool name and core purpose. Every sentence adds value—no filler, tautology, or redundant 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested options, 18 domains, no output schema), the description covers key use cases but omits details like return format, pagination behavior, and whether multiple domains can be searched simultaneously. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by detailing how to use the options parameter for the precedent domain (includeText, detailLimit) and recommending domain='nts' for tax queries. This context helps agents select correct parameters.

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 an integrated search across 18 specific domains (판례, 해석례, etc.) and includes the verb '통합 검색' (integrated search). It distinguishes from siblings like search_law (which likely searches statutes) and get_decision_text (which retrieves a specific decision).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use specific domain values (e.g., domain='precedent' with options for full text, domain='nts' for tax interpretations). It does not directly compare to siblings but implicitly excludes other tools by stating this is the integrated search for these domains.

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