expc_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 context beyond annotations: it specifies that JSON is not supported by the API (only HTML or XML), mentions rate limits implicitly via 'max 100' for display parameter, and provides practical recommendations like 'Recommend 50-100 for searches to ensure exact matches are found.' This adds meaningful behavioral information.

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, args, returns, examples). While comprehensive, every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, though the parameter documentation is lengthy but necessary given the schema coverage gap.

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 (14 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description does an excellent job of providing necessary context. It explains parameters thoroughly, mentions API limitations (JSON not supported), provides practical usage examples, and clarifies return values. The main gap is lack of output format details, but overall it's quite complete for this 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, the description carries the full burden of parameter documentation. It provides detailed explanations for all 14 parameters, including defaults, constraints (max 100), format specifications (YYYYMMDD~YYYYMMDD), enum values (1=법령해석례명, 2=본문검색), and practical recommendations. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 legal interpretations (법령해석례 목록 조회)' and elaborates with 'This tool searches Korean legal interpretation precedents issued by government agencies in response to inquiries about how to interpret specific laws.' It specifies the exact resource (Korean legal interpretation precedents) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on this specific type of legal material.

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 (searching Korean legal interpretation precedents) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'expc_service' or other search tools in the sibling list. It provides examples but no explicit guidance on tool selection criteria.

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