cgm_expc_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral details like response format options (JSON/XML/HTML), search modes, and pagination defaults, but omits deeper behaviors such as return structure, rate limits, or the meaning of 'oc' and 'gana' parameters.

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 a title, summary, explicit args list, return note, and a concrete example. The long list of ministry names is necessary for usability. Every section serves a purpose, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers all parameter semantics and gives an example, which is essential for invocation. However, it lacks details about the structure of the returned data (fields like case number, title, date) and error handling, which is significant given the absence of an output schema. The return statement 'Ministry interpretation list or error' is too generic.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description takes on the full burden of explaining parameters. It provides meaningful descriptions for ministry, query, display, page, type, and search, with defaults and valid values. However, a few parameters like sort and gana are only minimally described, and oc is vague ('defaults to env var'), leaving some gaps.

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's function with a specific verb + resource: 'Search law interpretation opinions from Korean central government ministries.' It differentiates itself from sibling tools like expc_search and cgm_expc_service by explicitly scoping to 중앙부처 (central ministries), 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when searching for ministry law interpretations. It lists valid ministry values and parameter mechanics (pagination, response formats), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving some room for ambiguity among similar search tools in the sibling list.

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