search_laws

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

Discloses that complex keywords may yield zero results, explains scope parameter meanings (1=title search, 2=content search), and mentions the 'mst' field for chaining with get_law_text. Lacks disclosure on auth or rate limits but adequate given no 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?

Single paragraph with line breaks, front-loaded purpose. Each sentence provides useful guidance (searching, scope, chaining). Could be slightly more concise but no waste.

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?

No output schema, description partially compensates with behavioral details and parameter hints. Lacks return format description (except 'mst') and error handling. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description adds meaning for scope (1=title, 2=content) and implies query is keyword. Page and display not explained but have defaults. Adds moderate value beyond 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?

Description clearly states '법령(법률·대통령령·부령 등)을 키워드로 검색합니다' with specific verb and resource, distinct from sibling tools like search_admin_rules and get_law_text.

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?

Explicit guidance on using alio://related-laws for public institution queries and advice to use single core keywords to avoid zero results, effectively steering usage.

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