lstrm_rlt_jo_search

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description need not repeat safety traits. It adds details on response format options (JSON, XML, HTML) and notes the automatic injection of ctx, which is useful. However, it does not disclose the return structure or any other behavioral quirks beyond 'Search results or error'.

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: a title line, a brief explanation, and a clear Args/Returns list. It is concise, with no redundant filler, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's interface.

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 no output schema, the description is responsible for explaining return values, but it only says 'Search results or error', which is vague. Parameter documentation is solid, but the tool's actual result structure and search behavior are not detailed, leaving a notable gap for an agent trying to interpret the response.

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 Args section explains every parameter with meaningful details: query keyword default, display count with max, page numbering, OC override, response format, and ctx injection. The schema has zero descriptions, so this fully compensates, adding significant value beyond the property names and types.

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's function: it searches the linkage between legal terms and specific law articles. The verb 'searches' and resource 'linkage' are specific, and the Korean title reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like lstrm_rlt_search by explicitly focusing on legal-term-to-article linkage.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. It simply describes what it does without mentioning alternatives or exclusion criteria. The implied usage is that it is for searching legal term-article linkages, but no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' is given.

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