aiSearch

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

The description discloses that it uses semantic search and returns full article text, and explains the search scope options that change behavior. It includes an example return value. However, it contains an inconsistency regarding default display value (description says 20, schema says 7), which slightly undermines transparency. Annotations already declare it read-only and idempotent, so no conflict.

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-organized with sections for usage, arguments, returns, and an example. It is front-loaded with a strong recommendation and includes useful details without excessive fluff. The minor default value discrepancy is a small deduct.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers usage guidance, parameter meanings, return summary, and an annotated example. It lacks detailed response structure but provides sufficient context for a typical AI agent. The sibling comparison and scoping options add completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential meaning for all 6 parameters: query (natural language), search (four scope enums), display, page, oc, and type. It gives a concrete query example and explains search scope values, though the default for display is incorrect compared to the 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?

The description clearly states it is an AI-powered semantic law search tool that returns full article text, and explicitly distinguishes itself from eflaw_search by being more comprehensive. It also positions itself as the preferred tool for vague queries, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use this tool first when intent is unclear or conversational, and provides example natural language queries like '뺑소니 처벌'. It also references eflaw_search as an alternative for comparison, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions.

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