eflaw_search

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable context: it notes JSON is not supported by the API (only HTML/XML), provides a recommendation for display values (50-100 for law searches), and explains the effective date range format. No contradiction with 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?

Well-structured with purpose statement, usage guidance, parameter details, returns, and examples. Every sentence adds value, but it's moderately long due to parameter explanations. The front-loaded purpose and usage are clear, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'JSON not supported' in type description and examples).

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 search tool with 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is highly complete. It explains all parameters, provides usage context, examples, and API limitations. Minor gap: no details on error handling or result structure beyond 'Search results with law list or error'.

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 carries full burden. It provides detailed explanations for all 9 parameters: query (search keyword), display (results per page with max and recommendation), page, oc, type (format options and JSON limitation), sort (order options), ef_yd (date range format), org, and knd. This compensates fully for the schema gap.

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 current laws by effective date' with Korean clarification. It specifies the resource (Korean laws) and scope (organized by effective date, currently in effect). The title is null, so the description fully defines the purpose without redundancy.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this when you need to find laws that are currently in effect.' This directly tells the agent when to select this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., law_search, elaw_search, drlaw_search), this clear context helps differentiate based on effective date filtering.

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