lnkDep_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral context (e.g., display recommendation, return type options, example), but it does not disclose details like pagination limits or error behavior beyond a generic mention.

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 clear summary, args list, return statement, and example. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Korean title is slightly redundant but harmless.

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 read-only search tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough context: parameters, defaults, a usage tip, and an example. It is complete for practical invocation, though it does not detail the structure of results or all edge cases.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: org is required with an example, display has max/default and a recommendation, page is 1-based, type lists formats, and oc is an optional override. Specifics for 'sort' and 'oc' are minimal, but the overall parameter semantics are clearly enriched.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'law-ordinance links by ministry', and further explains it searches local ordinances linked to laws managed by a specific ministry. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like law_search or ordin_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 implies usage by stating the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools, so the guidance is only implicit.

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