lstrm_rlt_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that: it mentions return format options and that it returns 'search results or error.' This is some added value but not rich behavioral disclosure. With annotations covering the core traits, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and front-loaded: a clear one-line summary, followed by a brief explanatory sentence, then an Args list and Returns line. All information is relevant, and the length is appropriate given the lack of schema descriptions. Slightly verbose due to the Args list, but every section serves a purpose.

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 search tool with 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and safe read-only annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, return options, and core behavior. It lacks details like pagination edge cases or default sorting, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity. The completeness is adequate for an agent to select and 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%, so the description must compensate and it does. Each parameter is briefly explained with defaults and constraints (e.g., query keyword, display count with max 100, page numbering, type options, OC override, ctx injected). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles and defaults, though some details like response structure are still vague.

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 purpose: searching the linkage between formal legal terms and their everyday equivalents. The verb 'searches' and the specific resource 'linkage between formal legal terms and their plain-language equivalents' are present. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools, but the unique resource makes the purpose clear enough.

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 clear context by stating it is 'useful for finding how legal terminology maps to everyday Korean.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternative tools like lstrm_rlt_jo_search or other legal search siblings. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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