search_acr_special_appeals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the source and type, with no mention of side effects, rate limits, or safety (e.g., read-only nature). The apiKey parameter hints at authentication, but this is not described as a requirement.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is written in Korean, which may reduce clarity for an English-language agent unless the agent is multilingual. The information is not front-loaded with a summary of the tool's purpose.

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 large set of sibling search tools and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on result format, supported filters beyond parameters, or any differentiation cues that would help an agent select this tool over alternatives like search_acr_decisions.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool searches for precedents of special administrative adjudication from the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACR). The inclusion of the body and case type distinguishes it from siblings like search_acr_decisions and search_admin_appeals, though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. the many sibling search tools. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer from the name and context. Prerequisites such as the apiKey are mentioned in the schema but not in the description.

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