search_by_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the output as including scholarly debates and judicial opinions per question, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not specify return format, pagination, or whether results are exhaustive, but the existence of an output schema covers some of this.

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 concise and front-loads the purpose and the example. The single-sentence structure is efficient, but it could be slightly more structured to separate the purpose from the output details.

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 single-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the core use case and what results include. The absence of usage guidelines is a minor gap, but the output schema and example provide enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'issue' parameter takes a legal issue keyword (e.g., '不能未遂之判斷標準'), which clarifies the expected input. However, it doesn't delve into syntax or format, but the example is helpful.

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 the verb (search) and resource (questions by issue), and gives an example of a specific issue. While it doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool, it is distinguishable from other search tools like search_by_statute and search_questions based on the issue-centric focus.

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 implies usage when a user wants to find which questions cover a specific legal issue, and it mentions that results include doctrinal conflicts and judicial views. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_questions or search_by_statute, leaving the exact selection criteria to inference.

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