aiRltLs_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context about return format ('List of semantically related law articles'), search scopes, and response types (JSON/XML/HTML). It does not claim anything contradictory, and the added detail is meaningful beyond the 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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and an Example, and key guidance is front-loaded. The ⭐ marketing text and the redundant Korean API name add slight noise, but every functional sentence earns its place.

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 moderate-complexity read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return values, and an example. It does not explain potential error cases or pagination, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does well. It explains query, search (with values 0 and 1), oc, and type, including defaults. 'Optional OC override' remains vague, but the overall parameter documentation is strong.

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 'Finds laws semantically related to a given law name or keyword' and is positioned as 'PREFERRED TOOL for discovering related laws from vague topics.' This distinguishes it from exact-match legal searches and among the many sibling search tools.

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 usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when user wants to explore laws around a general subject' and 'Best for: Finding related laws like 민법 → 상법.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools, so it misses the full 5.

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