elaw_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 context like the return format ('Search results with English law list or error') and a recommendation for display size, but does not disclose deeper behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, or API quirks. This is consistent with no contradictions.

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 sections for overview, args, returns, and examples. It is slightly verbose with two examples and a redundant 'Useful for' line, but every section serves a purpose given the parameter-heavy nature of the tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers most essentials: what it does, all parameters, and a basic return description. The return formatting is vague ('English law list or error') but acceptable for a search tool. It does not explain the meaning of sort codes or org/knd filter values, but those are API-specific and not critical for initial selection.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description fully compensates by documenting all 9 parameters, including defaults, allowed values (sort options, type formats), and practical guidance (e.g., recommending display=50-100). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Search English-translated Korean laws'. It clearly differentiates from generic law searches by focusing on English translations. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like eflaw_search or law_search, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 usage context ('Useful for international users or bilingual legal research') but does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It lacks explicit exclusionary guidance that would clarify its relationship to sibling tools.

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