search_taxlaw_forms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the search action and content type, but does not mention pagination, result format, permissions, or any side effects (though it is read-only by nature). The minimal description does not sufficiently inform the agent of the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. It is concise but could include more useful information without being lengthy. The structure is acceptable for its brevity.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It lacks details on how parameters work, what the return value contains, pagination, and how 'kind' filters results. Users (or agents) would need to guess or consult external sources.

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?

Input schema has 5 parameters with only 40% description coverage (query and lawId have descriptions, kind/display/page do not). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters or their usage. It does not compensate for the missing 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?

Description explicitly states it searches for '별표/서식' (appendix/forms) in the tax law information system, and lists the types of forms covered: all forms, appendix, legal forms, instruction forms, frequently searched forms. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_taxlaw_documents or search_taxlaw_interpretations.

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?

Description implies the tool is for searching tax law forms but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like search_taxlaw_all or search_taxlaw_documents. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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