search_nars_reports

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it mentions the specific endpoint, potential unreliability of the keyword filter, pagination via has_more, and return fields. The troubleshooting note adds transparency about possible issues.

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 clear sections (purpose, types, usage, args, returns, note). It is somewhat lengthy due to bilingual content, but every sentence adds value and the key information is 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?

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema (which may document returns), the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter details, return fields, pagination, and troubleshooting. It is fully complete for a search tool.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden. It provides a detailed 'Args' section with meanings, examples (e.g., '인공지능', YYYYMMDD format), and constraints (max page_size=100), adding significant value beyond the basic 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 clearly specifies the verb 'search' and the resource 'NARS reports', listing specific publication types (research reports, issue briefs, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_bills and search_hearings by focusing on legislative research publications.

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 explains that NARS reports are useful for understanding legislative context. It provides a fallback suggestion to use query_assembly with discover_apis if the keyword filter fails, offering alternative usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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