admrul_search

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: pagination defaults, response format options (JSON/XML/HTML), date range filters, current/historical law selection, and a recommendation to use display=50-100 for law searches. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, an Args list that documents all parameters, a Returns summary, and two concrete examples. Although longer than minimal, every sentence earns its place given the tool's 13-parameter complexity, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description covers all necessary operational context: parameter meanings, defaults, response formats, pagination, and example invocations. The return value is summarized as 'Search results with administrative rules list or error,' which is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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?

The schema has 13 parameters with zero descriptions, but the Args section compensates completely by documenting every parameter: its meaning, default, allowed values, and format. For example, it explains knd categories, search modes (rule name vs. full text), date formats, and the OC override. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 opens with 'Search administrative rules (행정규칙 목록 조회)' and specifies the resource types (훈령, 예규, 고시, 공고, 지침, etc.), making the tool's exact function and scope clear. This distinguishes it from sibling law search tools like law_search or elaw_search, which target statutes rather than 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 clearly establishes that this tool is for searching Korean administrative rules and provides usage examples for different query patterns. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternatives guidance.

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