lawink_precedent_semantic_search

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is public, requires no authentication, uses embedding-based search, and is a verified strength tool for ranking leading cases. However, it does not detail rate limits, pagination, or result sorting behavior.

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 a single, information-dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and includes a key recommendation with a star symbol. It could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description implies the result includes precedent_id and guides how to use it with lawink_precedent_relations. It also contrasts with sibling tools. Missing explicit return format details, but adequate 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explains that query is a natural language phrase (자연어 사안/질의) and mentions that limit exists with a default of 10. It does not explicitly describe limit's purpose, but the context implies it controls result count.

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 specifies semantic search on 160,000 precedents using embedding-based retrieval with natural language queries. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lawink_statute_semantic_search by stating this tool searches precedents by meaning, not statutes.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use this tool over alternatives, recommending a workflow: first find similar precedents here, then use lawink_precedent_relations to derive cited statutes. It also warns against directly using lawink_statute_semantic_search for statute citation discovery.

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