decc_search

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: pagination defaults, max results, sort orders, response formats (JSON/XML/HTML), search modes, and auto-injected context. It doesn't cover rate limits or auth, but this is strong for a read-only search API.

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 Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every sentence contributes information; parameter descriptions are concise one-liners and examples illustrate real use cases without fluff.

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?

Covers the full parameter space, defaults, examples, and a returns line describing the output as a list or error. It lacks a detailed breakdown of result item fields, but for a search API returning a list this is acceptable; no output schema exists, so a bit more detail on the result structure would push it to a 5.

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%, and the description compensates by documenting all 13 parameters with defaults, formats, valid values, and date range syntax. This goes far beyond the schema and is essential for correct invocation.

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 searches administrative appeal decisions, with a specific Korean title and a definition of administrative appeals. This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools that search laws, precedents, or other legal materials.

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 strong contextual usage guidance including examples for keyword, date range, and broad searches, plus parameter explanations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for other legal search needs.

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