detc_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior context by defining response format options (JSON/XML/HTML), sort/date/dictionary search parameters, and noting that the result is a decision list or error. No contradiction with 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 Examples sections. Each parameter line is terse and informative, and the examples are compact. There is minor repetition of the tool's purpose in Korean and English, but this aids bilingual clarity rather than bloating the text.

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?

All 12 parameters are covered, examples demonstrate common use cases, and the return type is stated generically as 'Search results with Constitutional Court decision list or error.' Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, slightly more detail on the result structure would be beneficial, but the description is sufficient for correct 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates fully by listing and explaining all 12 parameters, including defaults, constraints (display max 100, page 1-based), allowed values (sort order, search type), and examples. This goes well beyond what the bare input schema provides.

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 Constitutional Court decisions (헌재결정례 목록 조회)' and repeats 'Search Korean Constitutional Court decisions.' This clearly specifies the action (search) and resource (Constitutional Court decisions), and the resource name distinguishes it from sibling law/ordinance/precedent 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?

The description provides concrete usage examples, such as keyword search and date-based search, and explains parameter behaviors. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like detc_service or other decision-list search tools, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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