special_decc_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 covered. The description adds a minimal 'Returns: Special appeal decision list or error' and parameter semantics, but does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or detailed result behavior beyond that.

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 Args, Returns, and Examples sections, and is appropriately sized for a 13-parameter tool. The first two sentences are somewhat redundant ('Search special administrative appeal decisions' vs. 'Search decisions from Korean special administrative appeal tribunals'), but the rest is efficient.

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?

Given 13 parameters, no output schema, and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential context: purpose, all parameters with semantics, return type, and a usage example. It could be stronger by describing the structure of the returned list, and some params like sort and gana remain vague.

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 carries the full burden and does it well. It explains every parameter, including valid Korean tribunal values, default values, max display, page base, response formats, search mode meanings, and date formats.

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 searches special administrative appeal decisions and includes the Korean equivalent for added precision. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling special_decc_service, but the verb 'search' and resource are specific 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 implies usage by stating the tool searches special administrative appeal decisions and gives a concrete example with a valid tribunal name. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like special_decc_service or decc_search.

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