search_korean_law

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

With no annotations, this description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details two distinct behaviors: for specific article lookup it returns exact content directly with no further steps, and for broad keyword search it returns a summarized list with Typed IDs that must be used with read_legal_resource. This is strong behavioral transparency, though it omits potential edge cases or error handling.

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 a one-line summary followed by clear capability sections and usage tips. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary but every sentence contributes meaningful information and it is effectively front-loaded.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no annotations, the description thoroughly covers the tool's dual-mode behavior, how to use its results, and directs users to sibling tools when appropriate. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially with the output schema available.

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 input schema only has a query parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates richly by providing concrete query examples ('Civil Act Article 103', '민법 제103조', '2010다102991') and explaining how the query type affects behavior. This gives an agent a clear understanding of how to construct queries.

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 is the 'Primary interface for searching Korean laws, precedents, and administrative rules,' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining it is a 'Smart Search' that adapts to query type and explicitly references alternatives like search_law_articles for article-level keyword searches.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: ALWAYS try to be specific, and for finding articles containing keywords, first search for the law to get its ID, then use search_law_articles(law_id, 'keywords'). It also mentions read_legal_resource for obtaining full text of broad search results, clearly covering alternatives and exclusions.

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