admrul_search

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains response format limitations ('JSON not supported by API'), provides practical display size recommendations, clarifies date format requirements (YYYYMMDD), and explains what the search modes mean (rule name vs full text). While annotations cover read-only/idempotent safety, the description adds API-specific constraints and usage guidance.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement, parameter explanations, return statement, and examples. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first. Some parameter explanations could be slightly more concise, but overall the description efficiently conveys necessary information without wasted text.

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 complex 13-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description provides comprehensive parameter explanations, practical usage guidance, and examples. It covers format limitations, search modes, date formats, and recommendations. The main gap is lack of output structure details, but given the annotations indicate a safe read operation and the parameter coverage is excellent, this is reasonably complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed explanations for all 13 parameters. Each parameter gets clear semantic meaning: query is 'Search keyword', display has 'max 100' constraint with recommendation, type explains format options with API limitation, nw distinguishes current vs historical, search explains rule name vs full text, etc. The description does the heavy lifting the schema doesn't.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search administrative rules (행정규칙 목록 조회)' with specific examples of rule types (훈령, 예규, 고시, etc.) and explains what administrative rules are. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on administrative rules rather than other legal documents like laws or precedents.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (searching Korean administrative rules) and includes practical recommendations like 'Recommend 50-100 for law searches to ensure exact matches are found.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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