ordinLsCon_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns 'Search results with ordinance-law linkage list or error' and includes an example, which gives useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 structured with a purpose statement, Args list, Returns, and an example. It's somewhat verbose but front-loaded and each section earns its place.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers purpose, parameters, return value, and gives an example. It doesn't delve into error conditions or edge cases, but is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with an Args section explaining each parameter: query, display, page, oc, and type. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, although 'oc' remains somewhat cryptic.

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?

Description clearly states 'Search ordinance-to-law linkage' and explains it 'searches national law articles that are referenced or linked by local ordinances.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like ordin_search or law_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?

Provides a clear use case: 'Useful for finding the legal basis (상위 법령) that a specific ordinance is based on.' However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so it's clear but lacks exclusions.

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