ordin_search

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the return format ('Search results with local ordinance list or error'), pagination behavior (display/page), and the meaning of key parameters like 'nw' (current/historical) and 'search' (name vs full text). It also notes that MCP context is injected automatically. These details make the tool's behavior predictable and safe.

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 clear sections: summary, Args list, Returns, and Examples. It is fairly long due to the large parameter count, but every line contributes useful information. The front-loaded purpose makes it easy to understand quickly.

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 complex tool with 18 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, this description is complete: it defines all parameters, explains return values, provides multiple usage examples, and clarifies error behavior. There are no significant knowledge gaps left for an agent.

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 schema provides 0% parameter descriptions, but the description's Args section fully documents all 18 parameters, including default values, allowed formats, and Korean translations for codes like 'knd' and 'search'. This completely compensates for the missing schema descriptions and adds meaning beyond raw parameter names.

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 explicitly states 'Search local ordinances (자치법규 목록 조회)' and adds that it covers Korean local ordinances including 조례, 규칙, and other regulations. This clearly identifies the tool's function with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools that search national law.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (searching local ordinances) and provides practical examples with query, org, and knd filters. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it for local ordinance searches.

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