search_decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint as true, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds that it is an integrated search with domain-specific options, which is consistent and provides additional context, but does not significantly extend beyond the annotations.

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 with two sentences, but the first sentence is a mix of Korean and English, which may reduce clarity for some agents. It front-loads the key purpose but could be structured more cleanly.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, nested 'options' object, no output schema), the description covers the main use cases and provides examples, but it does not fully explain all domain-specific option structures or the return format. More detail could improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for parameters. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of the 'domain' parameter with examples (e.g., 'nts' for tax), and hints at usage of 'options' for certain domains. This enriches the schema beyond the baseline.

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 is an integrated search across 18 domains, with specific domains listed in the enum. It mentions selecting a domain and gives an example for precedents. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'search_law' tool, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 provides usage guidance for specific domains (e.g., 'precedent' with options.includeText, 'nts' for tax inquiries). It implies that the tool covers multiple legal domains but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given.

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