search_law_articles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are returned as Markdown formatted text and that the search is limited to article text, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential edge cases, read-only behavior, pagination, or handling of no matches, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 compact and well-structured, with a one-sentence purpose, clear Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 search tool with two parameters, the description covers the core requirements: purpose, parameter meanings, and return format. The absence of usage guidance compared to sibling tools is a minor gap, but the tool is otherwise self-contained and correctly invokable.

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 Args section explains both parameters with concrete details: law_id includes an example format, and keywords clarifies space-separated values. Since the schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), this fully compensates and adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('articles of a statute'), clearly defining the operation as keyword search within law articles. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_korean_law or search_legal_terms, which focus on different resources or query types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as search_statutory_interpretations or search_legal_terms. The description only states what the tool does, without context about preferred use cases or exclusions.

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