elaw_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 beyond annotations: it notes JSON is not supported by the API (only HTML/XML), provides a display count recommendation for better results, and mentions the context parameter is injected automatically. 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?

Well-structured with purpose statement, usage context, detailed args section, returns statement, and examples. The args section is comprehensive but could be more concise. Every sentence adds value, though the display recommendation could be integrated more smoothly. Good front-loading of core functionality.

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 9 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering only safety aspects, the description provides excellent completeness. It explains all parameters meaningfully, includes API limitations (JSON not supported), provides usage recommendations, shows examples, and clarifies the automatic context injection. This fully addresses the tool's complexity.

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 (titles only, no descriptions), the description carries the full burden. It provides excellent parameter semantics: explains query accepts Korean or English, display has max 100 with recommendation, page is 1-based, type format options with JSON limitation, sort order codes, effective date range format, and that org/knd are filters. This fully compensates 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 searches Korean laws translated to English, specifying the resource (Korean laws) and action (search). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on English translations, unlike tools like 'law_search' or 'eflaw_search' which likely search different language versions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'elaw_service'.

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 ('useful for international users or bilingual legal research'), indicating its target audience. It includes a specific recommendation for display count (50-100) for law searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention 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.