search_precedents

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important behavior that keywords are matched against the title only, but it omits other behavioral details such as default status filtering (all vs current), limit handling, or result format.

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, front-loaded Korean sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose, the second clarifies the match scope, and each sentence earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter search tool with fully described schema and no output schema, the description provides the essential search-scope constraint. It lacks any mention of return structure or default behaviors, but those are either inferable from the name or covered by the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that the 'query' keyword matches the title, which the schema does not state. It does not add detail for limit or status_badge, but those are already well documented.

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 ('검색합니다' - searches) and resource ('상업등기선례' - commercial registration precedents), then narrows the scope with '제목에 포함된 키워드로'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_precedent_by_number (number lookup) and list_precedents (browse all).

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 title-based keyword search context makes the intended use clear, but the description never explicitly states when to choose this tool over list_precedents or get_precedent_by_number. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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