eflaw_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add context. It does add useful details: the effective date organization, the recommendation for display=50-100, and the OC override defaulting to env var. No contradictions 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-organized into intro, Args, Returns, and Examples. Every sentence and parameter line adds value, and the two examples are practical. It is detailed but not bloated.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary information: parameter semantics, return format ('Search results with law list or error'), and usage examples. The agent can confidently invoke and understand the result.

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%, but the description documents all 9 parameters in the Args block with formats, defaults, and examples. It fully compensates for the missing schema info, even describing the ef_yd date range format and sort options.

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 'Search current laws by effective date' and 'This tool searches Korean laws organized by effective date.' This specific verb-resource-scope combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like law_search and elaw_search.

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 a clear 'when to use' statement: 'Use this when you need to find laws that are currently in effect.' However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full 5-level guidance.

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