prec_search

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds beyond this by explaining the OC override (auth default), response format options, and that the tool returns a result list or error, offering useful behavioral context not present in structured fields.

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 (Intro, Args, Returns, Examples) and is front-loaded with purpose. Each parameter line is terse yet comprehensive, and there is no superfluous content; the length is justified by the number of parameters.

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 tool with 16 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameters, provides usage examples, and states the return type. It lacks detailed error semantics and full return structure, but given the complexity, the description is largely complete.

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 fully compensates by documenting all 16 parameters with types, defaults, allowed values (e.g., sort options, org codes, search types), and example usage. This is far above the baseline for an undocumented schema.

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 identifies the tool as a search over Korean court precedents, explicitly naming the resource ('판례 목록 조회') and scope ('Supreme Court and lower courts'). It uses a specific verb ('Search') and distinguishes it from statute-focused sibling search tools.

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 clear usage context through its title line, detailed parameter list, and examples (e.g., searching for '담보권' or by court name). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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