advanced_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It does not disclose key aspects such as read-only nature, pagination, authentication requirements, or the effect of filters. The brief description adds minimal behavioral context, which is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 very short (two phrases) but lacks formal structure or full sentences. It is concise but at the expense of clarity and completeness. While not verbose, it could be more 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, many siblings, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, how to combine filters, or when to prefer this over other search tools. The mismatch between description and schema further detracts from completeness.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not add meaningful value beyond the schema. It mentions filters by law type, department, and enforcement date, but these correspond to parameters 'searchType', 'org', and 'fromDate/toDate', with a mismatch: description says '시행일' (enforcement date) while schema says '제정일' (enactment date). This inconsistency could confuse the agent.

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 states 'Advanced Search' with filtering by law type, department, and enforcement date, which clearly indicates the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'search_law' or 'search_ordinance', relying on the 'advanced' label. A more detailed differentiation would improve clarity.

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 phrase '복합 조건 시' (when complex conditions) provides implicit guidance that this tool is for complex queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or which alternative tools to use for simpler searches, leaving room for ambiguity.

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