law_search

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context: return format (law list or error), the recommendation for display 50-100 to ensure exact matches, and that 'oc' defaults to an environment variable. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 an intro, args list, and returns section. It is somewhat verbose with the Korean text repeated, but each parameter gets a useful brief description, and the organization makes it easy to scan.

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 9-parameter search tool with no output schema and basic annotations, the description covers purpose, all parameters, and return value. It lacks error scenarios, sort value examples, and explicit differentiation from siblings, but is generally complete for typical use.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all 9 parameters with concrete details: display limits and defaults, page base, date format (YYYYMMDD), response type options, and filter purposes. This gives the agent meaningful information beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool searches current Korean laws organized by announcement date, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like eflaw_search or elaw_search, though the 'current laws by announcement date' scope suggests a distinction.

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. It implies searching current laws but doesn't mention exclusions or compare with sibling tools like eflaw_search, elaw_search, or admrul_search. The recommendation about display size is parameter-level, not tool selection.

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