search_law

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

The description significantly enriches the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) by detailing specific behaviors: automatic fallback to autonomous/administrative rules on zero results, automatic abbreviation conversion, automatic annotation of name changes and upcoming amendments, and identifier acquisition. 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 adequately structured with the main function first, but it is relatively long with multiple clauses and examples. Some redundancy exists (e.g., listing document types multiple times). A more streamlined version would improve conciseness without losing key 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 complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, rich annotations), the description covers core behaviors, fallback, and special features. It lacks an explicit specification of the output format beyond 'lawId, mst', which may require some domain inference from the agent. Overall, nearly complete.

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% for both parameters (query and display), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add new semantic detail about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., examples and caution about display default). No gap to compensate.

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 is for keyword searching of Korean law names, ordinance names, and administrative rule names to obtain lawId and mst identifiers. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_law_text (which retrieves full text) by emphasizing identifier acquisition and search fallback behaviors.

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 indicates when to use the tool: before querying legal documents to secure identifiers. It explains automatic fallback and abbreviation conversion, providing context for effective use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare with alternatives like ordinance_radar or legal_analysis.

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