expc_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds substantial behavioral context, including parameter defaults, max display value, recommended display range, search modes, date-range formats, and OC override behavior. It does not mention rate limits or exact error handling, but what is covered is valuable.

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 summary, parameter list, return info, and examples. It is lengthy but necessary given 14 parameters; no significant fluff, though the explanatory sentence about government agencies could be seen as slightly redundant.

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?

For a complex 14-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is highly complete: it covers all parameters, return value, and includes usage examples. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 fully compensates by explaining every parameter's meaning, defaults, and constraints. It adds meaning well beyond the raw schema, making each parameter's purpose clear.

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 searches Korean legal interpretation precedents (법령해석례 목록 조회), with a specific verb 'Search' and a well-defined resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming the domain and scope.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like expc_service or cgm_expc_search. The purpose implies usage for searching legal interpretations, but there are no stated exclusions, alternatives, or context cues.

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