prec_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds some behavioral context by mentioning pagination ('display: Number of results per page'), search types, and format options, but doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling beyond 'Returns: Search results with precedent list or error.'

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 (description, Args, Returns, Examples). Each sentence adds value: the opening defines purpose, Args section explains parameters thoroughly, Returns states outcome, and Examples provide practical usage. Some parameter explanations could be more concise, but overall it's efficiently organized with minimal waste.

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 tool's complexity (16 parameters, no output schema, no annotations beyond basic hints), the description does a reasonable job but has gaps. It explains parameters well and provides examples, but lacks information about response format details, error types, pagination behavior beyond basics, and how results are structured. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally provide more about return values.

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 provide parameter names), the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It provides detailed explanations for all 16 parameters including defaults, constraints ('max 100'), formats ('YYYYMMDD'), and enumerations ('lasc|ldes|dasc|ddes|nasc|ndes', 'Y or N'). This significantly compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 court precedents (판례 목록 조회)' followed by 'Search Korean court precedents from Supreme Court and lower courts.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('court precedents'), and jurisdiction ('Korean court precedents from Supreme Court and lower courts'), distinguishing it from siblings like admrul_search or law_search which search different legal resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like prec_service (which likely provides detailed precedent information) or differentiate from other search tools on the server. The examples show basic usage but lack context about when this search is preferred over other legal search tools.

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