search_taxlaw_publications

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'search' without revealing pagination limits, authentication needs, scope, or whether it returns metadata or full text. The brief description leaves agents blind to important constraints.

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?

Two short sentences, no redundancy. However, the lack of structure (e.g., bullet points) and missing title are minor drawbacks. Still, it's efficient for its length.

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 4 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what results look like, how to use categories, or any typical usage pattern. A search tool needs more context to be safely invoked.

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 coverage is 50% (only query and categoryCode have descriptions). The description adds no parameter meaning; it doesn't explain how query or categoryCode interact, nor does it hint at display or page behavior. With low coverage and no compensation from the description, this is insufficient.

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 it searches for publications (발간책자) in the national tax law system, distinguishing it from siblings like search_taxlaw_documents or search_taxlaw_interpretations. However, 'publications' could be more specific (e.g., booklets/guides), and the null title misses an easy clarity win.

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 on when to use this tool versus other search tools. The description only states its function; it doesn't explain context, alternatives, or prerequisites. Siblings like search_taxlaw_all exist, but no comparison is provided.

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