decc_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety aspects. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies that JSON is not supported by the API (only HTML or XML), mentions pagination behavior with page numbers, and indicates maximum result limits (max 100 per page). This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose explanation, parameter documentation, returns statement, and examples. While comprehensive, it's appropriately sized for a tool with 13 parameters. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'type="XML"' in examples), but overall it's efficiently organized.

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 search tool with 13 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining parameters and providing examples. It covers the search domain, parameter semantics, and response format limitations. The main gap is lack of output structure details, but given the annotations cover safety and the description explains format constraints, it's mostly 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 carries full burden for parameter documentation. It provides detailed explanations for all 13 parameters, including defaults, constraints (max 100 for display), format specifications (YYYYMMDD for dates), and meaning of enum-like values (search=1 vs 2, sort options). The 'Args' section comprehensively documents what each parameter does.

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 searches Korean administrative appeal decisions, specifying both the verb ('searches') and resource ('administrative appeal decisions'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on administrative appeal decisions rather than other legal documents, and provides context about what administrative appeals are.

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 context through the explanation of what administrative appeals are, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'decc_service' or other search tools in the sibling list. There's no guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with similar tools.

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