trty_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it returns 'Search results with treaty list or error' and by clarifying that it searches only treaties that are in effect, which is beyond the schema. It does not contradict 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 longer than strictly necessary, but the structured Args and Examples sections make it easy to scan. Every item in the parameter list earns its place because the schema provides no descriptions. The bilingual Korean/English text adds a little length but these are translations for a Korean legal database, not wasted words.

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 the complexity (12 params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return type, and gives practical examples. The return section is minimal ('Search results with treaty list or error'), but for a list-style search tool this is adequate. It could be improved by describing the structure of a single result, but this is a minor gap.

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. It does so thoroughly by explaining all 12 parameters, including meanings, defaults, constraints (e.g., max 100 for display, format for date ranges), and search types. This is exemplary compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Search international treaties (조약 목록 조회)' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It further clarifies that it searches Korean international treaties in effect with foreign countries and organizations, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like law_search or prec_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?

The description provides clear context by specifying the exact domain (Korean international treaties) and the scope (concluded and in effect). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, such as trty_service, which would make the guidance more complete.

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