search_law

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: automatic fallback to autonomous/administrative rules on zero results, automatic abbreviation conversion, and automatic notation of name changes/scheduled amendments. 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose ('keyword search → lawId/mst'). Each clause adds operational detail (scope, fallback, abbreviation conversion, usage context) without redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description conveys essential return values (lawId, mst) and covers fallback behavior, abbreviation handling, and usage context. It does not detail result structure or pagination, but those are minor for a search tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter understanding by explaining fallback behavior for queries returning 0 results and the rationale for the display default (preventing short-name exact-match omissions). This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 clearly specifies the verb (검색/search) and resource (법령명·조례명·행정규칙명), and the outcome (lawId, mst acquisition). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_decisions by focusing on law/ordinance/rule name searches for identifier extraction, and mentions fallback to autonomous/administrative rules.

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 explicitly states the tool is for obtaining identifiers before retrieving laws/ordinances/rules ('조회 전 식별자 확보용'), indicating when it should be used in a workflow. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context clearly differentiates it from content-retrieval functions.

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